Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Local Government Finance

Mr. David Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received encouraging him to replace the community charge with a tax on property values.

The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): As far as I am aware, no one has made a representation to me in favour of a roof tax based on capital or site values.

Mr. Martin: I welcome my honourable—soon to be right honourable—Friend to the Dispatch Box at his first Environment Question Time. If he manages to extricate himself from his present job with the same high distinction with which he served in the previous two he will deserve the title of the Houdini of the present Government.
Any reversion to domestic property values would mean a return to all the anomalies and unfairnesses that we knew under the rating system, and that would bear down heavily on the elderly, who stay for many years in houses that gain in value around them but whose incomes often do not rise in relation to that value. Would not such a return act as a wealth tax and would not there be a great cry after a while, exactly as there was before we abolished domestic rating?

Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend's opening remarks were very kind. He is exactly right: the trouble with the rating system, as all parties recognise—at least they did at one time—was that property is no proxy for the means that a person has, and any taxation system based on property will be unfair for that reason. One must assume, in the absence of any details, that Labour's new plans would be as unfair as, if not more unfair than, the rates.

Mr. Orme: Does not the Minister recognise that the change from rating to a poll tax has meant that Salford needs to employ 300 extra people to collect the poll tax and to spend about £110,000 on an extension to house them? How does he justify that?

Mr. Portillo: The cost of collecting the community charge is about double the cost of collecting the rates, and the number of people paying the community charge is about double the number who were paying the rates. The correlation is exact; the cost per head of collecting the

community charge is the same as it was under the rates. This is a fairer and broader-based tax, and that is a price worth paying.

Mr. Knapman: Will my hon. Friend try to provide just a little more detail about the roof tax? I must declare an interest, in that I have been fortunate enough to buy an old mill and a few acres in my constituency, but it is not in very good order—10 years ago the roof fell in. Should I repair it or leave it as it is?

Mr. Portillo: I wish that I could help my hon. Friend. He must, I am afraid, address his appeal to the Opposition. It is for them to supply the details of the new roof tax and, in particular, to explain who will pay it. We understand from the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) that who pays it will be based on maximum choice, and we now have interesting evidence from the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who says that whether one pays the community charge is a matter for the individual. Presumably that begins to elucidate what maximum choice in payment is about.

Mr. Gould: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new task and to the bed of nails that is the poll tax. I accept that, given the work that we understand he is doing on changes to the poll tax, he cannot yet tell us what his alternative will eventually be, but can he at least give us a clue about the features of the poll tax that he finds objectionable and intends to change? Is it the unfairness; or is it the administrative and cost complexity to which he referred; or is it the fundamental principle of a head tax which, as he knows, is shunned in every country with the single exception of Papua New Guinea? Will the changes that he proposes require legislation and, if so, when does he propose to introduce it?

Mr. Portillo: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind welcome to me in my new job. If it were a bed of nails the hon. Gentleman would have cushioned the impact considerably by providing me with the opportunity to attack the Labour party, which criticises us without providing any alternative or any details of its policies.
The Labour party is about to make announcements about policy. The Government have no plans to make new announcements on policy this week, and we will look with great interest at what the hon. Gentleman produces tomorrow. My policy since I took on the job from my distinguished predecessor has been to listen carefully to my hon. Friends to discover what anomalies there may be in the present operation of the tax.

Water

Mr. Hague: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what sums of investment are planned in improved water standards over the next 10 years.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten): On present plans the water industry will be investing £26·3 billion over the next 10 years to improve standards and to repair and renew its infrastructure.

Mr. Hague: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that figure is the strongest proof that water privatisation has been extremely good news for the environment? Can he


confirm and emphasise that in contrast to the days of state control, such expenditure is no longer subject to the uncertainties of the annual public spending round?

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is entirely right. There is now a massive investment programme in the improvement of the water environment. We look forward to hearing tomorrow the Labour party's plans for renationalising the water industry. I am sure that that programme would enable Labour, if it were ever in office, to do what it did on the last occasion when it cut investment in water and sewerage by 50 per cent. in real terms.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Will not the Minister admit that the Government's record on investment in the water industry has been pitiful and is one reason why there are a number of cases pending in the European Court of Justice? Would not it be far better for the Government to make sure that more investment was put into the water industry so that those cases may be withdrawn?

Mr. Patten: I am more than happy to stand on the record, which is that since 1980 investment in water has risen by 50 per cent. in real terms. Under the previous Labour Government investment in water fell by 50 per cent. in real terms. In so far as I understand the Labour party to have any plans for the water industry, it wants to spend taxpayers' money on buying back water shares.

Mr. Charles Wardle: To facilitate future capital investment more than £5 billion of water authority debt was written off ahead of privatisation. How will the taxpayer bear the cost of that write-off? The obligation to repay £5 billion does not disappear into thin air. How will the taxpayer be required to meet that obligation?

Mr. Patten: The taxpayer has made an important investment in the improvement of water quality. We were able to secure a green dowry for the water industry when we privatised it. As I said, we shall spend over £26 billion on investment in water quality over the next 10 years. It will be interesting to see whether Labour plans to increase that investment programme or whether it will follow past practice which is, whatever it says about infrastructure investment, to cut such investment.

Sulphur Emissions

Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to attain the targets for reductions in sulphur emissions in the United Kingdom set by the directive from the European Community.

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier): The Government set out their general plans for implementing the directive in a consultation paper published in August 1989. A further consultation paper setting out more detailed figures will be issued shortly.

Mr. McAllion: In her speech to the United Nations the Prime Minister boasted that Britain had a £2 billion programme of flue gas desulphurisation which would reduce acid rain emissions from our power plants. Why within six months of that speech has the programme been slashed by at least a third, and why is Britain turning to the much less effective but cheaper alternative of importing low-sulphur coal which has the added disadvantage of threatening thousands of jobs in the British mining

industry? Is it because the Government give a higher priority to cutting public spending and boosting private profits than they do to protecting the environment or the jobs of British workers?

Mr. Trippier: The Government give a higher priority to the environment than the Labour party ever could. I detect from the hon. Gentleman's question that not only is he in a mess, but so is his party. The Labour party seems to wish us to burn as much coal as possible, but at the same time to reduce CO2 levels. It will be interesting to see how it squares that circle with the release of its policy document tomorrow. Labour's concern for the environment is not worth the paper it is written on. Its order of priority is the National Union of Mineworkers first and the environment second. That illustrates perfectly why the Labour party will never be a credible party of the environment.

Mr. Butler: What will be the relative cost to the consumer in attaining those targets, of flue gas desulphurisation and of the importation of low-sulphur coal?

Mr. Trippier: I hope that the consultation paper that will be issued shortly will give the informaton on costs that my hon. Friend requires.

Mr. Allen: Will the Minister ask his colleagues in the Department of Energy why it supported British Coal's programme of closing the pits that produced low-sulphur coal? Will he also ask the Secretary of State to reinstate the programme to ensure that our power stations are cleaned up so that they can use British coal rather than cheap imports, and we can retain jobs in the Nottinghamshire coalfield?

Mr. Trippier: I am certain that the overriding concern of British Coal is economics. The hon. Member knows that its strategy is aimed at achieving a competitive coal industry. That is the best guarantee of mineworkers' jobs. Keeping uncompetitive pits open will destroy jobs in the long term.

Rural Housing

Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to assess the need for new housing in the rented sector in rural areas.

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Michael Spicer): There is a requirement for low-cost housing for rent and sale in some rural areas. That is why we introduced our rural housing initiative, including a special Housing Corporation programme and new planning rules enabling additional land to be made available for low-cost housing for local people.

Mr. Shepherd: Is my hon. Friend aware that the shire district councils are experiencing acute frustration in discharging their function as facilitators of housing in rural areas, having made their assessments on requirements for both rented and for-sale accommodation? Is he aware that, for example, time and time again South Herefordshire district council has had a housing association interested in a project but has received no money from the Housing Corporation? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the balance of distribution within the Housing Corporation's resources properly reflects the real


requirements of the rural areas which, in view of demographic changes, have exactly the same needs as the urban areas in terms of homelessness?

Mr. Spicer: I hope that the Housing Corporation will give priority to rural schemes where local authorities have provided their own resources, including cheap land. At least five initiatives specifically relating to rural areas have been taken. The Housing Corporation is placing special emphasis on housing for rent in rural areas. The others are the low-cost home ownership programme, the Rural Development Commission's start-up programme, the low-cost shared ownership programme and the special planning arrangements for low-cost homes. I hope that authorities in rural areas will take note of those schemes and make the best use of them.

Mr. Bermingham: Further to the question of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] At long last, the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) has shown that he can count fingers. That is an advance on his previous state, when he could not even count.
Does the Minister agree, in the light of the relevant question from the hon. Member for Hereford, that unless we keep young people in rural and semi-rural areas, the drain into the cities will put pressure on them and will diminish the work forces of rural areas? Does he also agree that, without further initiatives, there will be no hope of providing the homes that are needed for youngsters in those areas?

Mr. Spicer: I agree with the hon. Gentleman and with my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) on this matter, and that is why we announced the initiatives. I think that we should let the initiatives go through and see how they work out.

Mr. David Nicholson: Would not the encouragement of young people, or people of working age, to remain in rural areas through the provision of low-cost housing, to which I think we all attach importance, help in the retention of village post offices and village shops generally which are threatened—I make no complaint about this—by high interest rates and a combination of the uniform business rate and the community charge? That is definitely a problem in rural areas, and I hope that my hon. Friend will address himself to it.

Mr. Spicer: I agree with my hon. Friend that if people live in villages, especially people with young families, they will spend money in the local post office, and that that will be good for those businesses.

Mr. Soley: The Minister has developed an unenviable reputation for not answering questions on housing, and his performance today has been no exception. I shall ask him a nice easy question today to help him regain his reputation. Why are Lady Anson and the Conservative-controlled Association of District Councils, as well as nearly every Conservative-controlled local authority in rural areas, saying that the schemes that the Minister has introduced do not begin to touch the problem and that a major change of Government policy is required if the housing crisis that is the result of a lack of affordable accommodation for rent or sale in rural areas is to be reversed? Why, in the hon. Gentleman's judgment, is Lady Anson wrong?

Mr. Spicer: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman directly. Five initiatives have been introduced only recently. IF an initiative has been introduced in the past few months, which in some instances is true, the best course is to see how it works out and to make a judgment later. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman says, all the signs are that low-cost houses are being built in rural areas, and that did not happen under Labour Governments.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Yeo: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the way in which community charge is levied on owners of empty property.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I have received a large number of representations about the level of standard charge which some authorities have set and the degree to which they have used their discretionary powers.

Mr. Yeo: Does my hon. Friend share my concern at the insistence of many local authorities on levying a standard charge on the owners of empty properties which are awaiting resale following the removal of the owners to a new permanent address? Will my hon. Friend make it clear to local authorities that, as Parliament has given them the power to levy either a personal charge or a nil charge on some properties, they should consider making wider use of that power?

Mr. Chope: I share the concern that my hon. Friend has stressed. That is why we shall write to local authorities to ascertain how they have been exercising their discretion. If we are dissatisfied, we shall have to consider whether we should specify the maximum multipliers that they can use in certain cases.

Mr. Battle: Will the Minister explain why poll tax, if it is not a property tax, is levied on second homes? Why is it levied on empty properties? Why is it levied on caravans, with the result that people in Leeds who own a modest caravan can no longer afford to go on holiday? Is not it a property tax?

Mr. Chope: Domestic rates used to be levied on empty property. My recollection from sitting in Committee with the hon. Gentleman is that the Labour party is in favour of a contribution being made by owners of empty properties towards the cost of local government expenditure. That is why we have a standard community charge.

Mrs. Peacock: Is my hon. Friend aware that many young people in my constituency and throughout the country who have bought a home in a bad state of repair to renovate are now being charged double standard community charge as well as their personal community charge? It is a disgrace. What will my hon. Friend do about it?

Mr. Chope: I share my hon. Friend's concern. Responsibility must lie with individual councils. They have discretion, and some have not used it as I would have done. That some local authorities have found a reason to exempt their own empty council properties from the standard community charge shows the sense of priorities of some local authorities.

Mr. Blunkett: Why, if the local authorities are to blame, was the scheme introduced by the Government in such a way, and why were 100 per cent. collection rates presumed, on the presumption that the money would be made up from the standard poll tax and the grant distribution would be assumed to have a standard poll tax collection rate of two per empty property? Is the Under-Secretary of State willing, in the review that we hear so much about, to ensure that local authorities are properly funded so that they can use their discretion to help all the people that Opposition Members believe should be assisted? Will he tell us why a property tax that is not a property tax needs a property tax to catch up on those who own second homes, who need to pay for local community services but cannot pay a property tax because the Government have abolished it?

Mr. Chope: Perhaps my answer will be too brief for the hon. Gentleman. The Government make no assumptions about income from the standard community charge when calculating revenue support grant. Therefore, there is no pressure on English local authorities to set the maximum multiplier in all cases. There is absolute discretion, and many Conservative Members are concerned that local authorities have not been exercising that discretion reasonably.

Storm Damage

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will increase the Government's package of aid to replace trees lost in the recent storms.

Mr. Trippier: In February I announced a £1 million package of aid to Task Force Trees and English Heritage to help to replace amenity and historically important trees lost in this year's storms. We shall consider the provision of further aid as part of this autumn's public expenditure survey. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food recently anounced special cash help to assist planting of broadleaved trees in woodlands damaged by the storms.

Mr. Townsend: Although I pay tribute to the Government, the Countryside Commission and English Heritage for the work that they are doing to restore the widespread damage following the storms, does the Minister agree that it is now perfectly obvious that more needs to be done? Will he have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to try to get him a little more interested in restoring damage and planting acorns—concepts that should not be utterly alien to the Treasury?

Mr. Trippier: I am sympathetic to my hon. Friend's underlying point. It is perfectly clear from the way that the Government have responded, especially with the near £30 million that has been spent following the incredible tragedy of the 1987 storms, that our commitment is total. Obviously, we shall have to wait for the negotiations in the public expenditure survey round later this year, but I have sympathy for the underlying point.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Minister aware of the storm devastation that still exists in the south-east? A number of trees still have not been cleared, never mind new planting. I echo what the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) said. Much more money is needed. How many

trees were lost in those two major storms and how many trees have been replanted, given the small amount of money that the Government have made available?

Mr. Trippier: We have had a substantial number of applications from various bodies, including local authorities, and it would be impossible for me to catalogue the total number of trees affected, but after the recent storms we received 148 applications which I believe are eligible for grant aid. Some of that money will be forthcoming this financial year and some more next year in the public expenditure survey settlement. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I admit that the bulk of the cost is not in planting but in clearing fallen trees.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Day: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what a person on average male earnings would pay in local income tax in 1990–91 in order to raise the same amount of revenue as the community charge in Truro.

Mr. Portillo: If we had a system of local income tax which raised the same amount as the community charge nationally, a single person in Truro on average male earnings could have paid up to £888.

Mr. Day: I thank my hon. Friend for that most interesting and illuminating reply for which I am sure the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) is grateful. Would it be even more helpful if roof tax figures were available for Truro and the rest of the country? Does my hon. Friend agree that the expected publication of Labour's mini-manifesto tomorrow is likely to throw no more light on the subject than Labour has shed on it in the past? Do not the public have a right to expect an answer concerning the Labour party's proposals?

Mr. Portillo: I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be helpful to have authoritative figures from the Labour party on the roof tax. My hon. Friend speculates that tomorrow's policy document will not provide much illumination on that subject. I can hardly believe that that is true. Labour party spokesmen—Mr. Peter Mandelson in particular—have more or less assured us that the details will be spelt out in tomorrow's document. Therefore, my hon. Friend must be mistaken if he says that they will not be forthcoming tomorrow.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I assure the Minister and the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) that Truro has absolutely no interest in the Labour party's roof tax. It is, however, interested in the local income tax proposals. Although the Minister is new to his job, he ought to be aware that his figures are not based on the kind of local income tax system that we would introduce. The local income tax figure for an average household in my constituency is £317, compared with an average household poll tax bill of £622. Cheadle constituents may be interested to know that the average local income tax bill for each household there would be £365, compared with an average household poll tax bill of £798. The hon. Member for Cheadle lost his seat as a councillor to the Liberals and no doubt will lose his parliamentary seat at the next general election.

Mr. Portillo: All I can say is "abracadabra." The SLD has come up with a system under which everyone everywhere pays less. Today I can reveal how that trick is achieved. Part of the trick is to take last year's figures, thus raising only £7·2 billion in local income tax in England whereas this year £10·8 billion is being raised from the community charge. Immediately, therefore, the hon. Gentleman's figures are out by a cool 50 per cent. Furthermore, my figures compare what a person on average male earnings would pay in each constituency. We are looking at what a person on the same level of earnings would pay in each constituency, which seems to be the only valid comparison.

Environmental Conference, Bergen

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent international conference on the environment at Bergen, Norway.

Mr. Trippier: I led the United Kingdom delegation to the ministerial conference on sustainable development in Bergen on 8 to 16 May which was attended by all member countries of the Economic Commission for Europe. It examined progress within the ECE on implementing the recommendations of the Brundtland report and allowed us to consider, from a regional point of view, the most crucial issues that will need to be decided at the United Nations conference on environment and development in 1992. It was also the first opportunity for western Environment Ministers to meet their newly elected colleagues from east Europe. The United Kingdom won praise for its constructive approach to the conference as whole, and in particular for its contribution to the forward-looking ministerial declaration which was adopted unanimously and by acclamation and a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

Mr. Jones: Does the Minister agree that it is a scandal that the conference failed to agree on even the modest first step of holding carbon dioxide emissions at their current level in 10 years' time? How can the Government say that they are committed to fighting global warming when all that they did at the conference was slavishly to follow the United States line?

Mr. Trippier: That is drivel. If the hon. Gentleman compares the Noordwÿk declaration with that which was agreed to at Bergen, he will see that a step has been taken in the right direction. The Bergen conference was not about carbon dioxide emissions but about sustainable development. The conference which is to concentrate on carbon dioxide emissions, their stabilisation and future reduction, is the second world climate change conference in Geneva, when the United Kingdom delegation will be led by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. It is absolute tripe and demonstrably daft for the hon. Gentleman to suggest to me, of all people, that we adopted the American line when we acted as honest brokers in bringing the Americans together with all the other countries at the conference.

Mr. Bill Walker: When my hon. Friend and his colleagues attend conferences, do they ever discuss not just man-made problems but natural problems? Many of the difficulties and hazards to the environment are caused by

nature. Is it not about time that we began to consider methods of rectifying the problems which result from natural disasters?

Mr. Trippier: I accept entirely that one of the most important issues that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has to address is global climate changes which are caused by man-made problems and those which occur naturally. That will be the subect of the three reports which I hope will be made public prior to the final report from Professor Bolin in late August.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Is the Minister aware that we welcome the seriousness of his approach to the problems in Bergen and acknowledge that he played a part in telling everyone how serious the problems under discussion were? Is he aware that we are disappointed, as were many of the participants, that he blocked some of the proposals, particularly the attempt to get agreement on an immediate commitment to stabilise carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2000? Is not it a fact that the Minister and the Secretary of State recognise the scale of the problems being discussed but are constantly undermined by other Cabinet Ministers, including the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Energy and the Prime Minister herself"? When does the Minister expect to make progress with his Cabinet colleagues, or will this be another case of Environment Ministers saying, "abracadabra"?

Mr. Trippier: What a pity—I was most impressed and incredibly grateful to the hon. Lady for the way in which she commenced her series of questions, and I am most grateful to her for her kind words about me. I have said already that the conference was not about carbon dioxide. If the hon. Lady had been in my place at that conference, she would not have agreed to a target or to any level, and many other countries also would not reach such an agreement—it was not just Britain and the Americas—because those matters have to be addressed in Geneva in November. The Government have been a large subscriber to the IPCC process, both financially and in terms of human resources, so it would be ridiculous for us not to wait until the IPCC has reported before deciding targets. The point was effectively made by the Danish Minister at the conference, who said that she was fed up with having to attend so many international conferences—seven in the past nine months—at which every main issue expected to be addressed involved carbon dioxide emissions. The hon. Lady must be a little more patient as it is only a few months until the Geneva conference.

European Environment Agency

Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the role of the proposed European Environment Agency.

Mr. Chris Patten: The aim of the agency is to provide the Commission and member states with objective, reliable and comparable environmental information at Community level. It will work by co-ordinating information from a network of national institutions and co-operate with other international bodies to avoid duplication. The regulation setting out the role of the agency in detail was adopted on 7 May 1990.

Mr. Paice: My right hon. Friend will agree that the agency will gather statistics, which will prove once and for


all that Britain is well ahead of many other European countries in protection of the environment. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Labour council in Cambridge has said that it does not wish the agency to be based in the city of Cambridge, thus displaying the council's real level of concern? May I assure my right hon. Friend that there are many suitable sites in my constituency close to the Cambridge city boundary where we would be pleased and proud to see the agency based?

Mr. Patten: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Whatever others may have done or said, he has consistently and vigorously pressed the case for Cambridge and the Cambridge area as the best base for this important agency. Cambridge has all the resources that the agency needs to operate successfully. It is the best candidate in the European Community, and I very much hope that the decision will take account of the overwhelming case for Cambridge and the surrounding area.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the Secretary of State also recognise the strong case that has been made by Aberdeen university to share in the work done by the environment agency and in the north of Scotland? As we do not wish to see centralisation, would not it be appropriate to steer some of the work north of the border?

Mr. Patten: If we had the opportunity at this Question Time, I have no doubt that more than 600 good cases could be made for the agency to be sited in different parts of the country—I will forbear to press the argument for Bath—but whatever the case for other universities, it is recognised well beyond our shores that Cambridge has an outstanding case.

Planning

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many simplified planning zones have been set up since the scheme commenced; and how many are in the pipeline for future approval.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): In England, simplified planning zones have been established in Derby and Corby. A further eight zones are at various stages of preparation.

Mr. Riddick: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the biggest problems facing entrepreneurs trying to bring enterprise and jobs to inner-city areas are the obstacles placed in their way by unhelpful planning authorities such as Kirklees council? Does he agree that we should be doing everything in our power, including the use of simplified planning zones, to make it easier to develop in inner-city areas, thereby reducing the pressure to build on green field sites?

Mr. Moynihan: I recognise the excellent work that my hon. Friend has done in trying to persuade his council to use a simplified planning zone. [Interruption.] Some Labour Members laugh, but many Labour councils have recognised the benefits of simplified planning zones for regenerating areas where there has been industrial after-use and for jobs. I am surprised that Labour Members laugh at the prospect of councils working with Government to create jobs.

Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister recognise that many local authorities are extremely anxious that deregulation

will lead to danger for the community and a risk to the environment? Will he guarantee that simplified planning zones will not give freedom to the irresponsible entrepreneur, who may be most interested in such development?

Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Member will know that a simplifed planning zone is established not at the direction of Government but at the request of the local authority concerned which, as with local plans, must undertake proper consultation, taking into account the important point that the hon. Gentleman made.

Mrs. Currie: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Derby we are thrilled to bits with our simplified planning zone, which has enabled the quick clearance of a derelict site and the erection of fine industrial units which have been let or sold, to the delight of the local business community? Will my hon. Friend come and see what we are doing in Derby so that he can assure Opposition Members that their fears are groundless?

Mr. Moynihan: It is always a pleasure to accept my hon. Friend's invitation to visit Derby. If I did so, I would see the 41-hectare site which, as a result of an imaginative response by the people of Derby and the simplified planning procedures, will enable an area of industrial plant to be brought back into active use in the interests of local people.

Mr. O'Brien: Does not the Minister's reply show that the simplified planning zone system is all to cock and on the whole not welcomed by local government? How well does it fit in with the present unitary development plan and the overall strategic plan? Has the Minister given thought to the planning problems that local authorities face and does he intend to help them by explaining how the scheme will fit in with unitary planning?

Mr. Moynihan: I am surprised that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman does not know the answer to that question. The answer is that the zones fit in perfectly. When local councils draw up their plans they will look at the specific areas where they need the opportunity to allow planning to go ahead without cumbersome procedures. They can identify those areas, propose simplified planning zones and institute them within the overall remit of their unitary development plans.

Right to Buy

Mr. Gerald Bowden: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions his Department has had with Southwark council about the level of capital repair charges which it sets for tenants who have exercised their right to buy.

Mr. Chope: The Department has recently written to the London borough of Southwark following representations by my hon. Friend and others about pre-sale estimates of service charges for repairs and improvements.

Mr. Bowden: My hon. Friend will be aware that those of us who take a close interest in the affairs of Southwark are convinced that Southwark council is using or misusing procedures under the right to buy to discourage people who are considering purchasing and, indeed, to demoralise those who have already purchased. Are the Government prepared to sit by and see their laws challenged in that


way? More importantly, are the Government prepared to see the rightful aspirations of those who wish to purchase thwarted by those procedures?

Mr. Chope: No. Parliament has given tenants the right to buy their flats and the Government are determined to see that those tenants have the right to exercise that right. My hon. Friend is right in suspecting that the failure in performance of Southwark council is largely due to a lack of will. Southwark has sold only about 690 flats in a period when Wandsworth sold more than 10,000.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Is the Minister aware that, not only in Southwark but elsewhere, councils which did no repair work on property before it was sold then estimate the repairs required in the next five years, apparently plucking figures out of the air and charging enormous sums of money—sometimes thousands of pounds—per purchaser per year? What do the Government intend to do to clarify the law? More importantly, does the individual purchaser have a right of access to the information on which the council carried out the valuation? If not, the tenant has no possibility of challenging the figure and apparently no option other than to pay. Freedom of information as well as clarification of the law is needed.

Mr. Chope: This is, indeed, a complicated area of the law. It appears that Southwark council is trying to use that to its advantage. I have written to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden). Certainly it seems to the Government that Southwark has wrongly interpreted the law in certain respects. I should be happy to explain to the hon. Gentleman the Government's concerns about that. The hon. Gentleman referred to the amount of resources that Southwark has and the amount that it spends. Southwark has masses of resources. It receives £33 million in its housing investment programme allocation and this year it is likely to receive about £94 million in housing revenue account subsidy.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to introduce amending legislation for changes in the poll tax.

Mr. Portillo: The Government have already announced that they intend to bring forward legislation to amend the law on the standard community charge as it relates to caravans.

Mr. Winnick: Is the Minister for the poll tax disappointed that the tax remains as deeply unpopular as it was when it was first introduced? Will the recently appointed co-ordinator of Government lies—I am sorry, I mean "information"—have an input in any adjustments to the poll tax?

Mr. Portillo: Since I took on the new responsibilities, it has become clear to me that the principle that everyone should contribute to the cost of local government is becoming more and more widely accepted. Indeed, I remember hearing the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) say yesterday that the most unpopular system for local taxation in Scotland was not the community charge but the roof tax proposed by the Labour party.

Mr. Conway: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, although there is no real need to amend that legislation, if

he is to make the community charge more understandable. and more accountable in the metropolitan areas, he should amend section 7 of the Local Government Act 1972 and enable the county councils to be elected on the basis of one third retiring annually so that local electors do not have to wait until 1993 to express their views about the high charges that have been levied by Labour county councils in the main?

Mr. Portillo: I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making. He may be thinking of that the fact that in his own county of Shropshire income has increased over the past year by 16·3 per cent., which had a major effect on the community charge in Shrewsbury which was set at £333. I well understand that point and urge county councils to be responsible when setting their income demands because under the new system such demands impact on the charge payer.

Mrs. Mahon: What extra resources will the Minister give the poll-tax-capped councils which have to send out extra bills for the administrative costs? In view of those capped councils, will the Minister explain the accountability argument?

Mr. Portillo: It was with some regret that the Government felt that they had to embark on charge-capping, but unfortunately some councils exercised themselves in such a way that they overspent excessively. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State therefore felt bound to offer some protection to the community charge payers. In proposing the caps, my right hon. Friend took into account the administrative costs of rebilling.

Mr. Dunn: Will my hon. Friend consider introducing legislation to help prevent the disgraceful practice of the Labour-controlled Walsall council, now also being followed by Labour-controlled Bradford council, that people living in Conservative wards are to receive fewer services and have less money spent on them than those in a Labour ward? Given that tomorrow the Labour party will be making a further attempt to con the British people into believing that Labour is suitable for Government, does my hon. Friend agree that the practices of Labour in power are nearer the truth?

Mr. Portillo: I have been so appalled by the allegations of that spiteful act that I am looking urgently into the matter. I have spoken today to Councillor Pickles in Bradford and am trying to establish what is going on. It would certainly be disgraceful if those practices were actually being carried out. I urge community charge payers in those areas to examine whether they have some recourse under the law as it now stands.

Mr. Gould: If the Minister is unable to tell us what changes he proposes to the poll tax, or whether legislation will be required, will he at least assure us that as soon as he has made up his mind he will make an immediate statement to the House? In the light of his earlier reply that all that he can say is "Abracadabra", will he assure the House that he is under no illusion that such an approach will suffice in the case of the poll tax?

Mr. Portillo: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has risen for a second time this afternoon and is leading with his chin once more. It is not the Government who are due to make an announcement—it is the Labour party, and we shall be looking closely at what the Labour party


says. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are currently engaged in trying to establish what anomalies there might be in the operation of the present tax. If we conclude that any changes are needed—I have not yet reached any conclusions—we shall, of course, make an announcement to the House.

Water Quality

Mr. Speller: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to improve the water quality off the north Devon coast; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Trippier: In October last year, the Government announced details of a £1·4 billion programme designed to bring United Kingdom bathing waters up to European quality standards within the next 10 years; £123 million of this was identified for improvement schemes on the north Devon coast. On 5 March my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that all significant discharges to coastal waters would be subjected to at least primary treatment, at an estimated cost of £1·5 billion. Discussions are now being held with the water industry and relevant regulatory bodies about the implementation of this investment programme.

Mr. Speller: I hope that my hon. Friend realises that the phrase "primary treatment" just means that the sewage is chopped up and does not improve the position. Is he aware that 118 licensed consents for disposal of sewage—either raw or partially treated—have been granted in the Bristol area, and that the sewage goes into the Bristol channel? I thank my hon. Friend for the good figures in the Finance Bill, but does he agree that our aim should be that eventually no sewage, partially treated or otherwise, is dumped in the sea? We must look to other alternatives such as landfill, incineration and controlled treatment on land, for sewage that is now sent into the sea. The sea should not be the open sewer that it is at present.

Mr. Trippier: The Government's view is the same as that expressed in my hon. Friend's two last points. He is right to point out that, given that alternatives must now be examined as a result of the policy decision made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and announced at the North sea conference, the other main options are incineration and landfill, or perhaps the use of treated sewage sludge as agricultural fertiliser. The House and every local authority must come to terms with the fact that alternative methods of disposal must be examined. That means that local authorities in particular must accept responsibility, especially for planning. We cannot simply wave a magic wand to make the dreadful stuff disappear.

Empty Property

Mr. Crowther: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the percentage of homes that have been empty for more than six months for (a) private housing, (b) housing associations, (c) local authorities and (d) Government and other public sectors.

Mr. Michael Spicer: At April 1989, about 1 per cent. of local authority and 2 per cent. of housing association dwellings had been empty for more than six months. I do not have corresponding information for other ownership

groups, but surveys in 1977 and 1980 suggested that at any time up to 3 per cent. of private sector dwellings had been vacant for more than six months.

Mr. Crowther: In the light of that reply, does the Minister agree that it is clear that, in the main, local authorities are exercising their responsibilities for their share of the nation's housing stock in an efficient way? Will he and other Ministers kindly stop attacking local authorities at every turn, as the local authorities are clearly doing better than other sectors?

Mr. Spicer: I do not regard a total of 100,000 empty local authority houses—which the housing authorities are responsible for providing—as acceptable. However, I accept that a large number of private sector dwellings—some 600,000—are also unoccupied. Why are they unoccupied? According to our surveys and research, the main reason for that is years of Socialist policies, such as rent control and controlled tenures and it has become somehow unacceptable to rent houses—that is something that we must put right. There has been legislation to deregulate and liberalise the private rented sector; we should now be putting self-confidence back into landlords so that they start to bring their houses back on to the market.

Mr. Tracey: Is my hon. Friend aware that just five Labour authorities in London have more than 10,000 empty public sector houses? In addition, five Labour authorities in London have £83 million of rents uncollected. As two of those authorities are Lambeth and Southwark councils, does the Minister agree that if they put their house in order it would help the homeless in London?

Mr. Spicer: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. That is why in recent months the Government have given £250 million to local authorities to renovate their housing stock—especially Labour authorities, because, as my hon. Friend said, they are far and away the worst culprits. That money will help to put those houses back into use, so that they can be used by the homeless people to whom my hon. Friend referred.

Water Quality

Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his Department's monitoring of eutrophication in British waters.

Mr. Trippier: The National Rivers Authority is responsible for monitoring eutrophication in England and Wales.

Mr. Wallace: I am sure that if the authority is doing its job it will have recognised that there is a problem of eutrophication in many British waters. Given that phosphates in detergents are a significant component cause of the problem, will the Government consider taking measures, in common with many other countries, to limit the amount of phosphates in detergent products and to introduce phosphate-stripping mechanisms in sewerage plants? I am sure that the Minister agrees that this is an important problem. What action are the Government taking?

Mr. Trippier: I am sorry, but I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman's initial statement. He said that many inland sites are affected by eutrophication, but that is not correct. In the United Kingdom there are only a few affected inland sites, such as Loch Neagh in Northern Ireland, certain parts of the Norfolk broads and Loch Leven in Scotland. Earlier this year the natural environment research council confirmed that the United Kingdom's nutrient imputs, including phosphates, did not contribute to the accumulation of nutrients even in the North sea and the eastern part of the North sea where problems of eutrophication have occurred. It is more accurate to say that there is a serious problem of eutrophication on the continent in the Waddenzee, the Danish coastal waters, the German bight and the Adriatic sea.

Environmental Issues

Mr. Mans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his policy towards increasing public awareness of environmental issues.

Mr. Chris Patten: I am firmly committed to increasing public awareness of environmental issues. My Department has taken many initiatives in this area, including greater public access to information, explanatory leaflets on environmental issues and plans for eco-labelling of products.

Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that at the moment the public is suffering most from too much inaccurate information and ill-informed opinion on the environment? Anything that the Government can do to increase the amount of factual information available must be an improvement on the present position.

Mr. Patten: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. That is one reason why we have advocated the establishment of an environment agency, which we discussed earlier in Question Time. The more the public are aware of real and accurate information about comparative environmental statistics the more they will recognise that this country has a good record, but that we are not complacent about it and we want to do even better.

Points of Order

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It is a private Members' day, but I shall take the point of order from Mr. Marlow first.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) is about to explain to the House, not before time, the workings of the roof tax [Interruption.] One would have thought that that would be of great interest to the whole House, but, unfortunately, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who is the Opposition spokesman on the subject, is not here. We feel that he might want to listen to my hon. Friend's speech. Is there any way in which we can get him back to the Chamber? If not, as the roof tax is, I believe, an Opposition proposal in fundamental form, would it be more appropriate for my hon. Friend to speak from the Opposition Front Bench?

Mr. Speaker: Of course, it may be that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) will come back when these points of order come to an end.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Question Time, a Minister at the Department of the Environment made an entirely unwarranted and unjustified attack on the city of Bradford. I said that he was trying to trample on local democracy and intimidate Labour councillors. Is it right that a Minister should be allowed to do that, particularly when Labour councillors, after their sweeping victory at the local elections, are busy clearing up the rotten mess left behind by the Tories?

Mr. Speaker: We often hear things with which we may violently disagree in this Chamber. It was in order.

Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) I wonder whether you would rule that it would be in order for my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) to speak from the Opposition Dispatch Box in the absence of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould)?

Mr. Speaker: That is a hypothetical matter.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) manages to get back, will you have a word with him to tell him to bring the Chancellor of the Exchequer along as well, so that he can come to the Dispatch Box to try to explain to the House why, in the first four months of this year, we have had a balance of payments deficit of £7 billion? That is the worst we have ever had and, despite all the gloss and the propaganda of the past few days, that balance of payments deficit is getting no better. We want him here.

Mr. Speaker: These are legitimate matters to raise on the Adjournment motion. The deputy Prime Minister, the Leader of the House, will be present to answer them. I cannot answer them.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Can you rule on this matter? There was originally in the list of Environment questions for today Question 7 in my name, which read as follows:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment" ——

Mr. Speaker: For today?

Mr. Hughes: Not today's Order Paper but in the paper printed on Monday and on previous days. The question was:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his Department's responsibilities in respect of the environmental protection of Antarctica.
The question was transferred to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I understand from inquiry that the decision was made not by the Table Office but by the Department. I further understand that the Department of the Environment accepts that it has responsibilities other than those relating to the United Kingdom. It is a very important matter. Environment Ministers tell us about global warming conferences, follow-up conferences to Brundtland and Bergen, and international discussions. They must have international responsibilities.
Can you inquire whether it is possible in future for Members to table questions to Environment Ministers about international environmental issues, or is it the case in this area, as in so many others, that what we feared is the truth: that they are given no responsibility by the Government, by the Prime Minister or by others for anything outside the remit of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It has taken the hon. Member five minutes to make his point.

Mr. Hughes: I should be grateful if, today or later, Mr. Speaker, you would tell us whether we can ask the Department of the Environment questions which relate to anything outside the United Kingdom.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman alleged that the Table Office had transferred the question.

Mr. Hughes: No.

Mr. Speaker: I am responsible for the Table Office. The question was not transferred by the Table Office.

Mr. Hughes: That is what I said.

Mr. Speaker: It is a matter for the Department whether questions are transferred. The hon. Gentleman should take it up with the Department. It is not my responsibility.

Mr. David Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on free postage and free notepaper in the House. Is it against the rules for a Member to use that privilege to circularise constituents? If it is against the rules, will you please take swift and strong action against the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who persists in abusing that privilege?

Mr. Graham Allen: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think I can protect the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). He has seen the error of his ways and has paid for the notepaper and postage that he used.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have heard during Environment questions the young and thrusting new


Minister for the poll tax making a disgraceful allegation about Bradford, which you have already covered. Did you also hear him say that, in order to find out whether the allegation was true, he had contacted the ex-leader of Bradford city council? Surely the constitutional relationship should have a Minister talking to the elected leader of Bradford city council. Will the Minister, through you, give an assurance that he will contact the elected leader—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That sounds like a continuation of Question Time. This is private Members' time. I am bound to take points of order into account in making my selection.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Week after week, the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) has filled the Order Paper with pages of proposed alterations to the rules. Is it not time he obeyed his own rules before proposing new ones?

Mr. Ron Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you explain to the lot opposite that there is a community charge, and the charge is that the poll tax is unacceptable, north and south of the border? I say that as a so-called Toy Town revolutionary. Toy Town revolutionaries will always challenge Toy Town reactionaries. The arguments and the campaign are, "Don't collect, don't co-operate—fight back."

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot answer questions like that. It is time that we all went away for the holiday.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 15 JUNE

Members successful in the ballot were:
Mr. Brian Sedgemore
Mr. Michael Latham
Mr. Alan Williams

BILL PRESENTED

PRIVATE SECURITY (REGISTRATION)

Mr. Bruce George, supported by Sir Barney Hayhoe, Mr. Michael Mates, Mr. John McFall, Mr. John Home Robertson, Mr. Neil Thorne, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. John Wilkinson, Mr. John Cartwright, Mr. Menzies Campbell and Mr. Don Dixon, presented a Bill to provide for the establishment of a Private Security Registration Council and to give that Council powers and functions for the regulation of firms offering private security servicess and of persons employed as private security agents; to require the registration for such firms and persons with the Council; to impose requirements upon such firms and persons; to make provision of training of persons employed as private security agents; to make provision for compensation to be paid in respect of inadequately insured death or injury arising from the activities of such firms and persons; to define offences and specify penalties; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 June and to be printed. [Bill 148.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

CRIMINAL DAMAGE (NORTHERN IRELAND)

Ordered,
That the Criminal Damage (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1990 (S.R. (N.I.), 1990, No. 79) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Ordered,
That European Community Document No. 4748/90 relating to glazing, masses and dimensions and tyres of road vehicles be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Roof Tax

Mr. Neil Hamilton: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to empower local authorities to raise revenue by levying charges on domestic property.
I should first of all like to deny the rumour that has been put around unworthily by some of my hon. Friends that this is an unserious or frivolous occasion, and what I am proposing this afternoon is a spoof tax. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a serious event. This afternoon I am seeking to advance democratic debate and provide alternatives for the people throughout the country to choose between. Recognising as I do that the Labour party is out of practice in introducing legislation into the House, I thought that I would distil the wisdom of the past 12 years to give it the opportunity, through me, to introduce its flagship local government proposals.
One thing we know is that the Labour party is firmly resolved to abolish the community charge as soon as it assumes office. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has said so on many occasions. Thanks to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), we also know that the Labour party is determined to produce an alternative. Before the local government elections in 1988, he said:
Our local government campaign must not be, and will not be, a series of attacks on the Government. Simply to oppose is the sort of vacuous opposition which the people of this country despise. We must, and we will, offer our alternatives.
Several months later, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), the Leader of the Opposition, announced:
We are sophisticating the policy.
I appreciate that sophistication and the right hon. Gentleman are not often found in conjunction. It is certainly true that we have not seen much sophistication since.
The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who mysteriously appears to have vanished from the Chamber, announced in January of this year in the House:
We are making very good progress with the work that we have undertaken to prepare our alternative … We have every confidence that in the coming months we shall reach a conclusion that we shall be able to bring forward with confidence."—[Official Report, 18 January 1990; Vol. 165, c. 438–39.]
I am delighted to bring that forward with confidence today.
The author of Labour party policy today, Mr. Peter Mandelson, the candidate for Hartlepool, announced on Radio Cleveland on 4 April that the next major policy statement by the Labour party would be on 23 or 24 May. He said that that statement would contain the party's fully worked out alternative to the poll tax. As that document is to be published tomorrow, I am giving the Labour party the first possible opportunity to put into legislative form the announcements that are about to be made.
In anticipation of this event, I wrote in these terms to the hon. Member for Dagenham on 9 May to announce that I was going to present my Bill today:
Although I have my own ideas, I would be grateful for your assistance in drafting the details of the Bill … The Committee stage of the Bill will be an excellent opportunity for Labour to clarify its thoughts and test some of its ideas.
In view of the importance which you attach to replacing the poll tax as soon as possible with what you see as a fairer alternative, and the opportunity which I offer of a substantial backbench Tory rebellion if we can construct such an

alternative, I am sure you will agree that this is an opportunity to render a service to the country and derive some kudos for the Labour party at a time whem its electoral fortunes appear to be on the slide. Can we meet as soon as possible to discuss tactics?
I regret to say that difficult as it must be for Conservative Members to understand, this opportunity was refused.
As the House well knows, however, the Labour party in Scotland has produced its alternative; the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) announced in February that the party intended to return, in effect, to the rating system and that, instead of notional rental values, the tax would be based on the capital value of a house. This would bring advantages for many hard-pressed sections of the community. Time does not allow me to name too many of them so I shall name only one: chartered surveyors. In the flat condition of the property market today they are, of course, desperate for work. In a
if Labour wins power, the new system could bring an explosion of work through a one-off general revaluation followed by annual sample surveys.
Another aspect which should make professionals salivate is the almost unlimited potential for appeals",
and so on.
Of course, although advantages would undoubtedly accrue to certain members of the community, the great advantage of what is proposed by the Labour party is that no one need be worse off, because if a person is dissatisfied with the liability that he is likely to have on his house, he can always trade down. I believe that the hon. Member for Dagenham has already done that. Recently, in that estimable newspaper the Daily Mail, there was an article about the hon. Gentleman, who recently sold his delightful house in Oxfordshire in order to purchase a small flat near Moreton-in-Marsh.
I wondered why the hon. Gentleman had made this change. First and foremost, an instant's thought will tell the more sagacious Members of the House that Moreton-in-Marsh is represented by our right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and we can well understand the eagerness with which the hon. Gentleman desires to become one of his constituents. But as I understand it, the hon. Gentleman's flat is in a very large 18th century country house called Northwick park—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I can assure hon. Members that there is no ideological inconsistency in that, because the flat is in the former servants' quarters. It will undoubtedly reduce the hon. Gentleman's potential liability. Its third advantage is that it is further from Dagenham. I can well understand why the hon. Gentleman, proposing as he does a roof tax, wants to be as far away from his constituency as possible. As the average price of a house in Dagenham is £65,000, to raise the same revenue as the community charge, the roof tax there will have to be £10·90 per £1,000, so the average roof tax will be £711 compared with a community charge of £278. A single person would be £433 a year worse off than at present and couples would be £155 a year worse off.
Of course there are advantages to the roof tax. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) tells me that in Scotland many blocks of flats have been assigned a negative value by district valuers. One assumes that when the roof tax is introduced it will be perfectly symmetrical.


That means that people in hereditaments with a positive value will pay something while those who occupy properties that have a negative value will be paid to live there.
I hope that what I am about to say, Mr. Speaker, will not alarm you. You live in one of the most desirable of residences, and its capital value is very great. An open market valuation may well add several millions to it. You derive a reasonable salary for carrying out your onerous office, and I do not begrudge a single penny of it. We all hope that you will continue to occupy your residence, just as we all hope that there will not be a Labour Government after the next general election. I hope that we shall not find Mrs. Weatherill putting bed-and-breakfast notices outside your residence to supplement your income so that you can pay the roof tax.
It will he simple to avoid the roof tax in the same way as the window tax was avoided. Just as windows were bricked up, so the roof can be removed and that will considerably reduce the value of the property.
There are reasons why my Bill should be supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. First, Labour Members should support their party policy by voting for me. Secondly, I should be supported by my hon. Friends who, by voting for the Bill, will show to electors all over the country and especially in London, the south-east and in areas where property values are greater than the average, how much they would lose by the election of a Labour Government. I call upon my right hon. and hon. Friends and Opposition Members to support me in the Lobby.

Mr. Edward Leigh: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to oppose the Bill?

Mr. Leigh: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I am surprised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton). As one would expect, he has presented his Bill with his customary wit and wisdom, but the measure is singularly ill-conceived. If I did not know my hon. Friend better, I would suspect that he had consulted the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), but surely that could not be the case.
My hon. Friend is a somewhat unlikely champion of socialism. Only this week, I espied him at a society wedding, wearing spats and carrying a cane with a silver top. I know that the vodka-and-tonic version of the Labour party to which the hon. Member for Dagenham belongs may not mind people wearing spats. Earlier this week, the Leader of the Opposition commented on the need for sartorial elegance by his spokesmen. Will they have to wear spats in the House in future?
Although my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton has presented his Bill in a mischievous tone, I must speak up on this entirely serious issue. I speak not just on behalf of my constituents but on behalf of those of the hon. Member for Dagenham. We have heard that people who occupy houses in Dagenham with an average value of £65,000 may well be as much as £400 worse off. This is therefore a serious issue for all our constituents.
I do not want to see the Bill proceed further, not least because my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton, knowing

me as he does and as godfather to one of my children, knows that it will hit large families hard. My hon. Friend knows that children need roofs and that large families need large roofs. Only this week, I acquired another member of my family. The Bill is a personal dig at me, and that is another reason for opposing it. It must also be a dig at the hon. Member for Dagenham, who occupies a great mansion in Gloucestershire with sweeping valley roofs and great pitched gables. I understand that his roof tax could be as much as £3,000. Is this a dig at the hon. Member for Dagenham?
There are some serious points. I oppose the Bill because I want some answers. I see a Labour spokesman, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) sitting on the Labour Front Bench. Let him answer a few simple questions. I will give way happily. I hope that he is listening carefully.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's questions, as this is a ten-minute Bill.

Mr. Leigh: How unfortunate. The hon. Gentleman can listen. I am sure that when that part-time Geordie and full-time London sophisticate Mr. Mandelson sophisticates the roof tax on Thursday, he will answer my questions. They have not been answered so far.
These questions can be put simply. First, how can it be fair to pay a tax based on property when a person's income can remain static while the capital value of his home goes up, with the result that, under the Bill's proposals, the roof tax will rise? Secondly, how can such a system be fair if one has no capital stake in one's home—for instance, when one is a tenant? Again, under the Bill's provisions, liability for roof tax still increases.
It is not surprising that this crab-like tax has crept forward, dodged around and come back. It is impossible to get a property tax like this to be fair. If we were to have a system based on income, there would be other problems. For example, Inland Revenue statistics are based not on a person's whereabouts, but on his job. How does one find out where a person is living and how much of his income should be redistributed around the authorities? Furthermore, London and the south-east have a concentration of high income tax payers. How does one redistribute that? It would make the rate support grant look like an easy game of draughts.
The roof tax is riddled through with inconsistencies and is fundamentally flawed. I am surprised at my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton. In the manner of Opposition spokesmen, he has proposed a policy without a price tag. He has given us no figures. We still have not heard from my hon. Friend or the Labour party whether this will be a tax on individuals or on households. Only the Labour party would produce a tax without saying who would be taxed, and we must be told.
All this is a diversion from what we should be discussing. The problem is not the nature of local government taxation but the fact that local government taxation is too high. People are paying too much. If Wandsworth and Westminster prove one thing, it is that Conservative councillors, in the next year or two, have rigorously to look at all their budgets and get bills down.
The roof tax is a mere smokescreen. It is confused and confusing. It is unexplained and inexplicable. I urge the House to reject the Bill with a substantial majority.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business)

The House divided: Ayes Nil, Noes 119.

Division No. 223]
[3.58 pm


AYES



Mr. Neil Hamilton and Mr. David Evans.


Tellers for the Ayes:





NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Irving, Sir Charles


Arbuthnot, James
Janman, Tim


Ashby, David
Jessel, Toby


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Aspinwall, Jack
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Kennedy, Charles


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Kilfedder, James


Beggs, Roy
Knapman, Roger


Beith, A. J.
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knowles, Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
Latham, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Lawrence, Ivan


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Lightbown, David


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Livsey, Richard


Buck, Sir Antony
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Burns, Simon
McCrindle, Robert


Butcher, John
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Butler, Chris
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Cartwright, John
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Cash, William
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Norris, Steve


Chapman, Sydney
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Colvin, Michael
Page, Richard


Conway, Derek
Porter, David (Waveney)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Riddick, Graham


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Cryer, Bob
Roe, Mrs Marion


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Shaw, David (Dover)


Day, Stephen
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Devlin, Tim
Shelton, Sir William


Dunn, Bob
Skinner, Dennis


Evennett, David
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Fallon, Michael
Speed, Keith


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Fishburn, John Dudley
Stern, Michael


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Franks, Cecil
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Gale, Roger
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Gow, Ian
Thorne, Neil


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Tracey, Richard


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Trimble, William


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Viggers, Peter


Gregory, Conal
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Grylls, Michael
Wallace, James


Hague, William
Ward, John


Hannam, John
Watts, John


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Harris, David
Wheeler, Sir John


Hayward, Robert
Whitney, Ray


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Widdecombe, Ann


Hind, Kenneth



Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Mr. Julian Brazier and Mr. David Nicholson.


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)



Irvine, Michael

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have said on numerous occasions that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is a distinguished former chairman of the Labour party. There may have been some confusion during the Division because the hon. Gentleman voted against the Roof Tax Bill. As he is a member of the national executive of the Labour party, whose policy this is, perhaps he ought to come to the Dispatch Box and explain what happened.

Mr. Speaker: Since the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has been attacked, I shall hear him.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The record ought to be put straight. The Labour party's national executive, under my chairmanship, never discussed the roof tax. During the course of the subsequent year, it never discussed the roof tax. During the last half hour, the Tories have played a clever and humorous game, but it was based on a figment of somebody's imagination. There has not been a Labour party roof tax, there will not be a roof tax and we killed it long before the Tories played their little game today.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the matter can be taken any further. It is not a matter for me.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) voted, as he explained, against the Roof Tax Bill. He must understand what the Roof Tax Bill is all about and what a roof tax involves. We do not. Perhaps you would give him leave to explain during the Adjournment (Spring) debate what it is all about.

Mr. Speaker: I thought that we heard what it is all about in some detail from the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton).

Mr. Bill Walker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that decisions affecting Scotland are frequently made in Scotland by Scottish Members of Parliament meeting in Scotland. I understand that a roof tax decision affecting Scotland was decided upon in two minutes in Scotland. We are now facing the imposition of a roof tax that was decided upon in two minutes. However, we have just been told by a senior member of the Labour party's national executive that there will be no roof tax. Will the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) please do something about informing the people of Scotland?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me. Since, however, the hon. Gentleman mentioned Scotland, I should like him to know how much I enjoyed my visit to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland last weekend.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance. The House would like to know whether personal statements can be made today or tomorrow. The figment of imagination referred to by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is a figment of the imagination of Labour party Front-Bench spokesmen—the hon. Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). It would be helpful to them, to us and to the hon. Member for Bolsover if we could be told whether a personal statement is to be made.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot be held responsible for figments of the imagination until they happen and nothing has happened yet. We should get on with the spring Adjournment motion.

Adjournment (Spring)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That this House, at its rising on Thursday 24th May, do adjourn until Tuesday 5th June.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Sir Barney Hayhoe: The Adjournment motion provides an opportunity for Back-Bench Members to raise matters of local, regional or national concern. The brief comments that I want to make about the growing problem of funding in the National Health Service apply at local, regional and national levels. I make these comments not in the context of the public expenditure round for 1991–92, upon which discussions are now taking place between Ministers and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, but in the context of the position this year. There is increasing pressure on the budgets of National Health Service hospitals.
Last autumn my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health told us how much he had achieved in obtaining extra resources for the Health Service for the financial year 1990–91. He equated those extra resources with a real growth in the Health Service. Since then, inflation has eroded—or more than eroded—that hoped-for and much-needed growth. Incidentally, the figures that the Government and Ministers produce on the Health Service, using the GDP deflator to demonstrate the effect of inflation, show a substantial growth in real terms in the finances available to the National Health Service. But one has to bear in mind that that global figure, although it is absolutely accurate, does not reveal the whole truth, which is that there has been a higher growth in family practitioner services, which are not cash limited, and a lower growth in hospital and community health services, which are.
The problems that we encounter in our constituencies are associated not with NHS family practitioner services but with hospital and community health services. Regional and district health authorities face severe financial constraints, and limits, reductions and cuts in patient services are necessary to balance the books for the current financial year. Ministers are more than usually insistent that the books are balanced this year to produce an even playing field next April for the introduction of the new financial regime for hospital services as a result of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.
The Whitsun Adjournment gives Treasury and Health Ministers an opportunity to review the present difficulties. Ward and bed closures and restrictions on operating sessions are enormously inefficient ways of reducing expenditure within the Health Service because they reduce productivity and increase the unit costs of particular operations or services in an unacceptable way. They result in longer waiting times and waiting lists. Such actions are being taken within a Health Service where morale is certainly not at its best.
Only last weekend a group of nurses came to see me at one of my advice bureaux. Many of them were student nurses from my local hospital, the West Middlesex University hospital, complaining about the impact of the community charge. One can understand that. They feel that they are treated unfairly compared with RAF apprentices—that issue has been raised in the House. They are also concerned about what they describe as abominable conditions at their own nurses' home. The


problem is not that the district health authority and the hospital authorities do not wish to improve those conditions; but that they cannot do so because they do not have the available financial resources. Capital schemes generally have been badly hit by falling land values, particularly in the Thames regions.
The case for an in-year increase of funds for National Health Service hospitals grows stronger. It needs urgent and sympathetic action during the Whitsun Adjournment by Treasury and Health Ministers. I hope that an appropriate in-year increase for National Health Service hospitals will be agreed.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I want to make two important pleas to which I hope there will be a helpful response from the Government before the House rises for the spring recess. My first concern, which I know is shared by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, is to help people with haemophilia—and the recipients by transfusion of whole blood—who were contaminated with AIDS in the course of health care under the National Health Service. My plea is not only important but also compellingly urgent for the victims, many of them terminally ill, of this deeply appalling tragedy.
There have been three Adjournment debates over recent months about the issues raised by this tragedy. The most recent was initiated on 9 May by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey). He has in his constituency a couple with two sons, both of whom suffer from haemophilia, and who became HIV-positive after the injection of contaminated blood products. The elder of the two boys now has full-blown AIDS and is terminally ill. Anyone who has read my hon. Friend's speech must have been moved by the scale of the tragedy that has stricken his constituents, but, as my hon. Friend said, their case is but one of 1,200 in which HIV has been confirmed. Many of the victims have already died, and more live with the certain prospect of an early and most painful death in direct consequence of treatment they were given under the NHS.
I should like briefly to raise today the case of 16-year-old Gerald Hillary, whose father is a detective superintendent in Manchester. Gerald was given contaminated blood products in the course of NHS treatment and, in 1985, became HIV-positive. He developed AIDS and died last year. From being a bright and active teenager, he weighed just three stone before he died and could hardly speak or walk. His mother said:
If love and prayer could have cured, he would have lived for ever. What hurts most now is that he need not have died.
She blames the Government and regards the ex-gratia payment of £20,000 for haemophilia sufferers with HIV as insulting. She says of the Government:
They were responsible. They were warned in 1980 that blood products could be infected, but did nothing.
In a recent letter to me, David Watters, general secretary of the Haemophilia Society, recalled that, as Minister for the Disabled in the 1970s, I appointed the late and much respected Sir Alan Marre to undertake an inquiry into the outstanding issues in the Thalidomide dispute. In 1978, Sir Alan had recently retired from the office of ombudsman and his report to me, in August of

that year, finally settled the dispute. David Watters, in his letter, asked me to press for a similar inquiry into the outstanding issues in the dispute now involving people with haemophilia—and the recipients by transfusion of whole blood—who became HIV-positive due to NHS treatment. He said:
We feel confident that such a move could prove helpful. One of our main concerns for our people is that time costs money and, for those who do not qualify for legal aid, the cost of court proceedings is exorbitant. The indications are that a large number of those who do not qualify for legal aid are, in fact, now being forced to use their ex-gratia payment of £20,000 to fund their court actions. Meanwhile, the Government's own legal costs far outweigh those of seeking to resolve the issues more quickly by an independent inquiry of the kind you set up finally to end the Thalidomide dispute.
After receiving his letter, I wrote to the Prime Minister recalling my appointment of Sir Alan Marre and suggesting the appointment of Sir Anthony Barrowclough to undertake an inquiry into the outstanding issues in the current dispute over HIV caused by contaminated blood and blood products.
Sir Anthony Barrowclough, who retired only recently from the office of ombudsman, enjoys the respect of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of this House and is of high standing in the legal profession. Again, as David Watters pointed out, the costs of reaching a settlement of the current dispute through him would be very much less for the Government than those of pursuing their case in the courts. It would certainly also lead to a quicker settlement. The earliest possible starting date for court proceedings is January 1991 and David Watters told me of the Haemophila Society's
very great fear that the defence lawyers could be about to embark on a series of delaying tactics which could set back the date for the conclusion of proceedings very considerably.
In writing to the Prime Minister, I reminded her that many of the victims, including young Gerald Hillary, had already died and that many others have scant prospect of living to see a court settlement of their claims. Justice for them, if any, will be posthumous which, as I hope the House will agree, is not justice at all. In urging her to follow the precedent of Sir Alan Marre's inquiry into the outstanding issues in the Thalidomide dispute, I pressed for an early reply. That was on 3 May and I still await her response. To date, the only official comment about my letter, apart from a formal acknowledgement from 10 Downing Street, was that of the new Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), who replied to the Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend for Kilmarnock and Loudoun on 9 May, and who said that I would be receiving "a considered reply" from the Prime Minister. The Under-Secretary also said that there was "not a precise parallel" between the Thalidomide case and the current dispute involving people with HIV due to NHS treatment.
Nowhere in my letter to the Prime Minister did I suggest that there was a "precise parallel" between the two disputes. But the outstanding issues in the Thalidomide case involved severely disabled people who were trying, mostly against impossible odds, to achieve justice through the courts, and so does the current dispute. In fact, the increasing number of deaths among people with AIDS due to contaminated blood and blood products makes the case for an out-of-court settlement all the more pressingly urgent. What Sir Alan Marre did, after I appointed him, was to resolve the outstanding issues in the Thalidomide dispute within five months. I believe that Sir Anthony


Barrowclough could do much the same in the dispute which is now dragging on to the anguish of everyone trying to help severely disabled people who face death from AIDS in consequence of medical treatment.
It is very widely hoped that the Prime Minister will reply soon to my suggestion. Its only purpose was to help people who are involved in a tragedy for which they are in no way responsible. There is still time for an oral statement from the Government on this most urgent and important issue before the House rises for the spring recess and I profoundly hope for a positive response from the Leader of the House when he winds up the debate tonight.
I hope he can help me also in regard to urgent action by the Government further to the debate I initiated on 30 March about childhood neuroblastoma, a form of cancer from which it is now very widely felt that far too many children die unnecessarily. In reply to my appeal to the Government on behalf of doctors and bereaved families alike, I was given a number of important assurances by the then Under-Secretary of State for Health. He agreed with me that any prospect of reducing the toll of suffering and death from this most dangerous form of childhood cancer deserved the most serious consideration and he said:
That consideration is now in hand in relation to neuroblastoma.
I was told that my views would play an important part in his department's decision-making and he concluded:
I hope that
the right hon. Gentleman
will welcome my assurances and pass them on to those whom he represents.
Since then I have had no further word from Health Ministers and there is much concern that the assurances I was given in the debate should now be seen to have been acted upon. I know that the Leader of the House will want to have urgent inquiries made about progress since the debate on 30 March before he replies this evening. In doing so, I ask him to have particular regard to the former Under-Secretary's words about me in column 870 of Hansard on 30 March, when he said:
I am persuaded by his arguments and I shall instruct officials at the Department of Health to find the figures by searching through the death certificates of children who have died from cancer and to ascertain the most current information about those who have suffered from the disease. That will be at exceptional cost, but the right hon. Gentleman's arguments merit exceptional treatment. I hope that he will accept that assurance in the spirit in which it is offered. I shall be in touch with him about how we can inform the House."—[Official Report, 30 March 1990; Vol. 170, c.874, 870.]
That was but one of the assurances I was given on 30 March and I repeat that, since the debate, I have heard nothing more from the Department of Health. I am confident that the Leader of the House will want to respond to me on both of the issues I have raised as helpfully as he can.

Mr. Robert McCrindle: I draw to the attention of the House just one issue that requires the urgent attention of Her Majesty's Government. I refer to the future retirement age of males and females. This has always been an important matter, but it has become even more important in the light of the judgment of the European Court of Justice a few days ago. That judgment related to an entitlement under a private pension scheme, but I do not believe that there will be any consensus in the

private occupational pension industry unless and until a lead is given by Her Majesty's Government about how they think that this important matter will develop.
I concede immediately that the Government are faced with a difficult problem which, understandably, they have sought to avoid for a considerable time. It is a difficult nettle to grasp because whatever the Government decide they are bound to upset one sex or the other. What to do about establishing a common state retirement age has become a matter of considerable public importance. Should everyone be enabled to retire at 60, as women can at present? Should everyone be required to wait until they are 65? Should there be a compromise at, say, 63? Those are all extremely difficult questions.
There are three avenues along which the Government might proceed. They could revive the idea that had the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) when he was Secretary of State for Social Services, which would have led to a "decade of retirement", meaning that any individual—male or female—could choose to retire at any time between the ages of 60 and 70. However, if the individual chose to retire at an earlier age, it would be on a pro rata pension. That is by no means an ideal solution, but it is one way to proceed.
Another suggestion that has been made, and to which I have been attracted in the past, is for the retirement age of women to be moved up by perhaps half a year in each of five years, while the retirement age for men moves down by half a year during the same period. That would defer a judgment for that period, but would result in everyone's being entitled to retire at 62½.
The third possibility that Ministers could consider is an arbitrary declaration that in future everyone, including women, will have to wait until they are 65—or that everyone, including men, will be entitled to retire at 60. If that second course were adopted, it would require either a considerable amount of additional funding or a pension lower than people's present expectations.
Before the decision of the European Court of Justice, the Government faced a challenge on current pensions policy from the Equal Opportunities Commission. The EOC has been seeking a judicial review of that policy on the basis that it contravenes the treaty of Rome. That is a bold course of action. Until now, many people have seen the EOC as fighting—understandably—to remedy the inequities from which women have suffered; now, however, it will have to fight to resolve the inequities from which men have been suffering. The decision by the European Court of Justice will undoubtedly lend weight to the EOC's view.
I cannot deny that the Government face a difficult and controversial task. Were they to set the retirement age at 65 for women as well as men, they would undoubtedly upset many women who have planned and budgeted for retirement at an earlier age. However, allowing everyone to retire at 60 without any loss of pension rights would—according to the most recent estimate that I could obtain—require additional Government investment of £3·2 billion per year. Clearly, there is no easy way.
Unless and until the Government reach a decision about this controversial issue, they cannot expect decisions to be made about private pension schemes, which tend to follow central Government decisions, although occasionally they take the lead. When my right hon. and learned Friend replies, I hope that he will accept that, although


there are no easy courses of action, in the light of last week's decision by the European Court a decision cannot continue to be postponed.
I have been an hon. Member for just under 20 years. On many occasions during that time—under both Labour and Conservative Governments—I have drawn attention to the need for a common retirement date. However, in 1990 we are still in the same position as when I entered the House in 1970. The Government must give a lead.
I am aware of the cost considerations, but in my judgment the matter merits the urgent attention of Ministers. At the very least, I submit that the time has arrived for the Government to produce a set of proposals that can be debated. Males and females—members of occupational pension schemes and those who rely on the state earnings-related pension scheme—could then have the opportunity of making their views known.
I hope that the Government will consider my remarks, and recognise that, whatever the possibilities for procrastination in the past, in the light of the recent judgment of the European Court of Justice the time has now come for us to make a decision.

Mr. A. J. Beith: As on previous occasions, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) has raised an important issue, but it is self-evident that it will not be solved by the time the House rises tomorrow. However, I agree with him that we cannot continue to put it off, and I hope that the Leader of the House will understand the message that some sort of machinery must be set in motion so that the Government can take the lead in a public debate on the vital issue of the respective retirement age for men and women.
There are two related issues to which I want to refer the Leader of the House before we vote on the motion for the spring Adjournment. On the first issue, I merely hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will pass on my comments to the Ministers involved, but I hope that he will give a positive response to the second issue. The first relates to certain specific matters connected with the poll tax and the second to the police pay regulations.
In the past few days we have been able to have a number of debates on the poll tax and the various revisions to it. Yesterday we had a good debate on a motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) and this afternoon we had an interesting and entertaining debate on the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton). Of necessity those debates have focused on the alternatives to the poll tax from next year, on which we all have views. There is, however, an urgent need for the group of Ministers assembled to consider the poll tax to introduce ameliorations for the current year. In the case of Scotland, those improvements should be retrospective to cover the previous year. I want to place on record some important issues that have not emerged in previous debates.
I hope that the Ministers in the group considering the poll tax will decide not to take the Whitsun recess. It would be useful if they were locked in a room for the week and told to sort something out. If they did something to help

people this year, they could then take a holiday. I hope that the Leader of the House will discuss that with his hon. Friends.
Areas of low rateable value and low incomes, which are hard hit because they are in the same borough or district as wealthy areas, must have some special provision made for them. Ministers at the Department of Environment are aware of the problem in my constituency at Castle Morpeth, as I have seen them about it. That area is a poor part of my constituency in terms of people's incomes and the rateable values, but people face a poll tax £100 higher per person than that in the neighbouring authorities because Castle Morpeth is part of an authority that contains a wealthy area with high rateable values.
Measures were taken in Wales to separate districts for the purpose of such calculations and that should be done in England. Some extra element of relief needs to be provided this year and the obvious mechanism for such further payments is the transitional relief system. I also hope that Ministers will consider increasing the rebate qualifying levels, as they obviously exclude many people whom we would recognise as being on low incomes.
There must be something wrong with the standard spending system, not least because so many authorities controlled by the Conservative party have been unable to get anywhere near the Government's proposed poll tax figure. It is no use the Prime Minister going on about Labour authorities when so many Conservative authorities are dissatisfied with the standard spending assessment figures.
I have also asked time and time again for urgent action to help those people who are excluded from transitional relief because they live in sheltered housing schemes. They previously paid their rates through housing associations, but now they have been told they are not entitled to transitional relief. Ministers have shown some interest in this problem, but they have not delivered the goods. They offer more and more excuses and say that they cannot do anything, much as they would like to. It is wrong that elderly people should be penalised in this way.
Anomalies have arisen over the interaction of the poll tax, the business rate and the standard community charge. One relates to bed-and-breakfast accommodation. In Scotland, the people providing that accommodation are not required to pay business rates in addition to the poll tax if they offer fewer than six beds—the same rule as applies to the fire regulations. In England, that exemption does not apply, and people will be expected to pay business rates and the poll tax for themselves and their spouses unless they restrict their bed-and-breakfast letting availability to 100 nights per year.
As a result of that exemption, the tourist season will be shortened, just at a time when the tourist boards are trying to extend it. Just as an injustice to Scotland was put right a few days after the Budget, that injustice to England should also be put right—bed-and-breakfast residences in England should be allowed the same exemptions from business rates as are available in Scotland. My constituency is on the border, and the different regime operating in the two countries means that the availability of bed-and-breakfast accommodation at various times of the year will be affected by the exemption and that the price charged for that accommodation will differ.
In most rural and holiday areas, the standard community charge is double the normal poll tax level. If it were not, the community charge would be a lot higher for


the normal resident charge payers. However, that standard charge bears heavily on those on low incomes who are obliged to live elsewhere, but who have purchased a retirement home in those areas. I refer particularly to vicars and ministers of religion, who live in vicarages or manses, from whom I have received many letters. They know that they must leave their present homes when their ministry comes to an end, and many make provisions for that time by purchasing an old farm cottage or something similar as a retirement home.
Those people are facing the severe pressure of having to pay a double poll tax in the area where they plan to retire, in addition to the poll tax that they must pay on their vicarages. A missionary and his wife who are working in Africa have no paid income. They live in a hut, and whatever food they require is provided by the local people. They have told me that they are required to pay a double poll tax on their retirement home, on which they are not entitled to any rebate. That problem also applies to some in Her Majesty's forces.
The categories of people subject to the double tax are already fixed—the present system affects those who live elsewhere because of their work. If councils simply reduced the multiplier for that category, all the wealthy second-home owners would benefit as well as those to whom I have referred. I believe that there should be a separate category for those who are required to live in provided accommodation as a condition of their work. That would come much closer to defining a category for whom the local authority could choose to set a lower multiplier. I hope that the Leader of the House will pass on that practical suggestion.
I hope that the Leader of the House will respond to the issue relating to police pay regulations as it directly affects his responsibilities. Today the Home Secretary is attending the Police Federation conference, where he is expected to get a pretty rough ride, not least because of the anger at the way in which those regulations have been treated. The police are angry because the Home Secretary has overturned the decision of arbitration. The Police (Amendment) Regulations 1990 were laid before the House on 9 March. They include changes in rent allowance and destroy the principle that a police officer can live in a rent and rate-free house or have the equivalent costs covered if he or she buys their own house. The matter was taken to arbitration and it is the result of that arbitration about which there is now controversy.
The police have pointed out that the special procedures for the arbitration mechanism are based upon the special circumstances of their work—the unsocial hours, the restrictions on their private lives, the exposure to danger, the need to be on call and the denial of the right to belong to a trade union. The arbitration mechanism exists because of those special circumstances and it has made certain proposals about the 1990 regulations. The staff side of the police negotiating board was taken to the police arbitration tribunal by the official side.
Tribunal decisions are binding on both sides of the negotiating board and are submitted to the Home Secretary. In the past the Home Office stated:
The Secretaries of State would never withhold approval of an agreement save for reasons of grave national importance

The Home Secretary has adduced no such reasons why he should not implement the decision of the arbitration machinery, which has attempted to deal with some of the severe problems presented.
Those problems are particularly acute for police officers in provided accommodation in rural areas. The police officers who live in their own houses will continue to receive the rates element in their allowance so long as they remain in their present homes. The level of that allowance is the subject of argument, but it will be provided.
Community police officers in rural areas, however, who must live in the village police house with the police office attached so that they can do their job will not receive that allowance. They have a much more limited temporary arrangement. By accepting the requirement of living in tied accommodation, they put themselves at a disadvantage anyway because they are not acquiring capital in a house of their own. They are to be subject to a further disadvantage in that they will have no rate allowance now that the poll tax has replaced the rates. These officers are almost invariably married, because it is normally regarded as essential to have a married man in such a post.
I quote a letter which I received from the wife of a police constable in my constituency:
I am the wife of a Police Constable and the mother of three children. We live in a house provided by the Northumbria Police Force, and up until now we have lived rent and rates free.
This may seem to be very enviable, but I must point out that because we live in a house with an attached Police Office, we have lost a certain amount of privacy. My husband is virtually on 24 hours call, and does not claim overtime when he answers calls after normal working hours, or is disturbed in the middle of the night.… When he is at work I answer all calls and enquiries, which, as you can imagine, is a full-time job during the summer season, and for which I am unpaid. I therefore feel we deserve a rent and rate free house, which is part of the terms of my husband's contract …
The Police Federation's advice has been for us to purchase our own home, which we have done in the past, but the terms of my husband's current employment states that he lives in this police house. If we were to purchase our own home he could not work in this area.
If the regulations are not changed, we will be unable to recruit policemen to work in rural postings where they have to live in a police house, with a police office attached, which is the cornerstone of community policing in many rural areas. Hence the importance of the issue in rural areas, as well as in urban areas.
The regulations which implement the change are subject to annulment in either House. Prayers were duly tabled by the Leader of the Opposition on the English regulations and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) on the Scottish regulations. My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) asked on 19 April when the prayers would be debated. The Leader of the House replied:
I understand that there is widespread interest in the police regulations and I shall seek through the usual channels to find an opportunity for them to be debated in due course."—[Official Report, 19 April 1990; Vol. 170, c. 1557–58.]
The prayers appeared in the provisional business of the House, which we were shown through the usual channels, some time ago, not very long after the Leader of House made that statement. Then they mysteriously disappeared, and have not reappeared.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) wrote to the Leader of the House and I have spoken to him myself about the matter. There has still been


no debate, nor has the matter been referred to a Committee. Who is preventing a debate? Is the Leader of the House going to tell me that the Official Opposition have told him that he must on no account allow a debate on their own prayer? I cannot believe that; no doubt the Leader of the House will tell us if that is so. Or is the Home Secretary leaning on the Leader of the House, saying, "For heaven's sake, don't let a debate take place on the police regulations because I am in enough trouble with the Police Federation as it is, and I do not want the regulations debated"? There must be some reason for the delay.
It is the law of the land that the regulations are subject to annulment in either House. In preventing that procedure from operating, the Leader of the House is showing scant concern for the very law and order about which his right hon. and learned Friend is no doubt talking to the Police Federation conference. There is a provision in law under which the regulations may be annulled. The Leader of the House is not allowing the law to operate. It is not good enough for him to say that the matter may be raised by any hon. Member on the Adjournment or on an Opposition Day. The provision was made so that that time would not have to be used on the Government's legislative programme, which is what this is.
A statutory procedure is being subverted. I contend that it is an abuse of the House for it to be so subverted. It is not the first time that it has happened. There is a litter of such motions, as there has been in previous Sessions. They all break the promise given when the procedures were introduced: that time would be found for debates on prayers. In this case, in the face of clear controversy, the Leader of the House must ensure that the matter is debated. I ask him to say later how he will make provision for that to happen.

Mr. John Ward: Before the House rises for the spring recess, I wish to refer to policing in Dorset. I say right away that I am a great admirer of the Dorset police, who carry out their duties with immense skill under their chief constable, Mr. Brian Weight.
Dorset, and especially east Dorset, has developed rapidly over recent years and the chief constable, with the full support of the police committee, has applied frequently for additional officers to be authorised by the Home Office to help him meet the increased requirement. Invariably Dorset is granted fewer additional officers than we think we need and the shortfall has had to be compensated for in other ways. There is a limit to what increased efficiency and the increased use of civilians can do, but the chief constable has made the maximum possible use of both options.
Every police force has additional burdens from time to time, but the cost of £2 million required to provide the necessary security at the forthcoming Conservative party conference does not make balancing the books any easier. In spite of the efforts of the local police, overall crime increased by 11·2 per cent. in Dorset in 1989. Although the detection rate has also increased and Dorset police have been among the leaders in the fight against drug abuse, it is an uphill struggle.
I hope I have shown that we are fully utilising the resources we have, and that we can make a good case for additional resources. Above all, we must retain the good officers we already have.
That brings me to the main point. As hon. Members will know—indeed the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has just referred to it—there has been some discussion and much correspondence about the Home Secretary's decision to reject the findings of the police arbitration tribunal this year. I do not question his right to do that, although I question the wisdom of the decision and the way that it has been implemented. The Home Secretary has responded to our criticism by making alterations which go some way towards making the settlement fairer; hon. Members will be familiar with the changes.
What I wish to highlight today is a great injustice which remains for Dorset police officers. Until now, some police forces have had their rent allowance uprated in even years, and some in odd years. Under the Home Secretary's present plans, some officers, including those in Dorset, will receive an allowance based on an uprating which took place on 1 April 1988, while others will receive an allowance based on an uprating which took place a year later. The arbitration tribunal recommended that there should be an uprating of the 1988 allowance under the old system of calculation, but the Home Secretary has said that the additional expenditure cannot be justified.
In spite of the most recent concessions by the Home Secretary, the effect will be that the Dorset police officer, who is currently receiving £1,333 per annum less than his colleagues in Hampshire, will receive a minimum of £856 per annum less than his Hampshire counterpart. I do not make too much of the London Metropolitan police allowance except to say that the London policeman will receive £2,863 more than the Dorset policeman. We all accept the additional risks often faced by the Metropolitan police, but I cannot accept that police in Hampshire, doing precisely the same job as police in Dorset and separated by an artificial line on a map, are worth over £800 per annum more in allowances.
During the recent disturbances caused by Leeds United football supporters in Bournemouth, we saw forces from other areas, including Hampshire and London, working shoulder to shoulder with Dorset police, carrying out the same duties, yet receiving different rates of allowances. It goes without saying that Dorset police are available to lend assistance to their colleagues in other police forces should the need arise. I am not asking for special treatment for Dorset police officers, but simply for fair and equal treatment for those who carry out the same job as their colleagues in other forces but who happen to live or work in the wrong area when it comes to allowances.
Obviously, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed did not know that today, during his address to the Police Federation, the Home Secretary said that there would be a debate in the House after the recess. We look forward to that. I hope that I have said enough to show that we both respect and like our police in Dorset. We need to retain the good and, yes, ambitious men who serve us. To do that we need to see fair play. Again I ask that the Home Secretary should reconsider the injustice of the present position and come back to the House, when we have the debate, with an arrangement which will right the injustice which I have illustrated today.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Before the House rises I want to appeal to the Leader of the House on behalf of the many thousands of young miners who are to lose their jobs over the next three years. The Leader of the House will be aware of the announcement by Sir Robert Haslam this week that up to 7,000 miners can expect to have to leave the industry during the next three years.
The House will be aware that, since 1984, there has been a massive rundown of the mining industry. There are now more than 1,000 men fewer in the mining industry than there were in 1984. The present position is more serious than it has been hitherto, because the average age of the work force in the mining industry is 33. If those young men find themselves out of work and the Government continue with their policy of providing very little aid to the mining communities, there will be no hope of those young men finding alternative employment.
I am sure that we are all aware that one of the main reasons for holding down the mining industry was the Government's feeling towards the miners' leadership and some of the miners. As I perceive it, the position now is a little different. I believe that British Coal's decision arose from the privatisation of the electricity industry, and has meant that, due to lack of investment, British power stations have not been fitted with the flue gas desulphurisation plants required to limit CO2 emissions from them. If, like many of our European colleagues, we had undertaken investment during the past few years, we would be able to meet the EC directive on emissions from power stations by 1993. Unfortunately, because such investment has not taken place, that is no longer possible.
The only way that British Coal and the new private electricity companies can meet that demand is with low-sulphur coal. There is insufficient low-sulphur coal mined in this country to meet the demand. Therefore, as the executive directors of National Power and PowerGen told the Select Committee on Energy a few days ago, their judgments will be made on a purely commercial basis, even if British Coal could meet the demand. They told the Committee that British Coal would have to reduce their prices by up to £6 or £7 a tonne less than imported low-sulphurised coal if it was to stay in the market. From my knowledge of the mining industry, I believe that that is an impossible task.
We are having further to run down our mining industry and import more coal. That policy is purely and simply based on commercial judgment in the short term. If that policy is to continue and our pits are run down so rapidly—bearing in mind the fact that Sir Robert Haslam said that 7,000 would have to leave the industry, and I believe that figure could be doubled if one takes into account the spin-off jobs outside the mining industry—when and if the Government, of whatever political persuasion, decide that they might invest in the desulphurisation plants, this country will not have the coal-mining capacity to feed them. Therefore, we shall still continue to rely on imports.
I am sure that I do not need to tell the Leader of the House or any other hon. Member what will happen to the so-called cheap coal from abroad once we cannot meet our demands. It will no longer be cheap, and we shall have to continue to import low-sulphurised coal when we could solve the problem ourselves.
It is worth noting that, if we had provided the plant—and if we do so in the future—it would limit the emission of CO2 by 90 per cent. Low-sulphurised coal will limit that emission by only 50 per cent. Therefore, if we are serious about attacking the problem of acid rain, our efforts should be to provide the necessary plant to the power stations, which can be fed by British Coal. I would have thought that that was common sense. To sterilise thousands and millions of tonnes of coal in this country and leave ourselves open to competition from abroad does not seem sound market judgment over the medium and longer term.
However, if the Government, National Power and PowerGen are to continue with their policy of relying on imports, we must ask what will happen to the people who are thrown out of work in the mining industry. That is the appeal I want to make to the Leader of the House this evening. As mining communities have been wiped out—my own in the Wakefield, Pontefract and Castleford travel-to-work area has lost 11,000 mining jobs since 1984—they have received no assistance from Government to try to attract alternative employment.
Although that has been bad enough, there was previously a cushion because the vast majority of men have been 50 or over and have received weekly payments to cushion the blow of losing their jobs. There is now a completely different ball game. I have already told the House that the average age of the work force is 33, and they receive no weekly payments or cushion.
If the Government do not intend to provide the plant to use British coal, but intend to run down the industry, I believe that, by the mid and late 1990s, the work force of the mining industry could be down to 10,000, whatever Sir Robert Haslam says. He says that people who talk in such terms—I hope that he does not mean me—are Jeremiahs. I regret that unfortunately, since 1984, the prediction of the Jeremiahs to whom he referred have been right and Sir Robert's estimates have been wrong.
I hope that the Leader of the House will persuade his colleagues in government that, if the jobs have to go—I believe that it would be a retrograde step for this country—there is an obligation on the Government to plan and assist those areas to attract industry to provide alternative work for the young miners who will be thrown out of their jobs. Surely that is the least that a Government can do, and that is my appeal to the Leader of the House tonight. Will he give serious consideration to that issue if the mining industry is to be run down to the extent that he suggests?

Mr. Michael Latham: The hon Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) has raised an extremely important point and he will have been heard sympathetically by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Those of us who represent Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire understand the problem that he describes, and we hope that he will have a sympathetic response later from my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House.
I wish to speak about two matters, the first of which concerns the relationships between church and state, which need urgent debate in the House. I shall not say very much about this because, by sheer luck, for the first time in 16 years I drew a place in the ballot this afternoon. Unfortunately, it was second place, but if the hon.


Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) has a short debate we shall be able to get on with discussing the problems of church and state. I shall table a motion which will express strong and radical views, but I suspect that the Government Whips will then make sure the debate on the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch will go on all afternoon.
I hope that when those who are charged with picking the new Archbishop of Canterbury start their work they will realise that many people in this House and in the country want a man who preaches well, who believes in orthodox doctrine—

Mr. John M. Taylor: And in God.

Mr. Latham: And in God, as my hon. Friend says. They want a man who will speak up for the traditional values and creeds of the Church of England—

Mr. John Carlisle: And is a Tory.

Mr. Latham: I disagree with my hon. Friend. The man's politics are irrelevant—what matters is that he preaches strongly and effectively. I believe that many people in the church are hoping for the choice of such a man.
I now turn to a wholly different matter—the Health Service in my constituency. The general subject of the Health Service was discussed strongly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Sir B. Hayhoe) earlier this afternoon. There is a difficulty in Leicestershire similar to that which he described in his area.
Leicestershire health authority faces the need to make cuts of £6 million this year to balance its budget by the end of the financial year. That is producing some unsatisfactory and worrying proposals, one of which is to close the Vale of Catmose hospital at Oakham in my constituency. I do not want to bore the House with too much detail, but that 100-year-old hospital is undoubtedly scheduled for closure at some stage, and Leicestershire health authority had proposed to close it in the middle of this decade.
Last year, to the great annoyance of my constituents and myself, the authority insisted on closing the maternity unit at the Rutland Memorial hospital—also in Oakham—as part of last year's round of cuts in the Health Service. This year, however, it promised us that the way in which it would solve the problem of the Vale of Catmose hospital would indeed be to close it, but that the site would be sold off only after a new major rebuilding programme had taken place at the other hospital, the Rutland Memorial, which would cost more than £1 million. That compromise, though regretted by many of my constituents, was regarded as reasonable in the circumstances. It is certainly generally accepted that the Vale of Catmose hospital will eventually have to close.
The latest proposal, which comes as a result of the economies required by Trent regional health authority, is that the Vale of Catmose hospital should be closed as quickly as possible, and the proposed rebuilding of Rutland Memorial hospital has been postponed indefinitely. I must tell the Leader of the House what I told the Secretary of State for Health when I and Leicestershire colleagues from both parties saw him recently—that this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. It arises almost entirely

from the collapse of the property market and hence the difficulty for Leicestershire health authority in disposing of surplus land. The authority had 600 acres of land for disposal. of which about 150 were of high residential development potential, and there is no doubt that the land can eventually be sold, but in the present bad state of the property market it cannot be sold for a figure that the district valuer would find acceptable.
The authority has therefore got into the present difficulties, but any commercial company in the same position would not immediately close down its operations—it would increase its borrowing. At our meeting with the Secretary of State for Health, my colleagues and I proposed that Leicestershire should be allowed to borrow some money to tide it over the present difficulties. The money could then be repaid next year when, I hope, the property market will have picked up. It is not a tremendously radical proposal—exactly such borrowing took place in the last financial year when Leicestershire health authority was allowed by Trent regional health authority to do so.
I am sorry to say that the Secretary of State for Health gave us a most disappointing reception when we went to see him. He said bluntly that Leicestershire health authority must live within its means, that he would not even look at the matter again and that he would not, as he put it, second-guess the health authority. That was a very disappointing reply.
It was reported in the local paper the other day that the new Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health—my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), whom I warmly welcome to his new position and who I am sure will do his job well—was quoted as saying that the Government
are looking at ways to ease the problems for the capital growth, some of it this year and in future years as well.
I have discussed that remark briefly with my hon. Friend. He may well not have been accurately quoted, and he may have been trying to say that the Goverment have no intention of arranging the kind of flexibility between capital and current spending that I want and may instead be looking into the problem of frustrated land sales.
It is essential that the Government do not allow the National Health Service to get into another cash crisis. They got into terrible political and social trouble two years ago when a similar problem arose. People in my constituency, especially those in rural areas, are not prepared to put up with a Health Service which entails having to drive 30 or 40 miles to Leicester for hospital treatment. They expect cottage hospitals in market towns such as Oakham and Melton Mowbray to be kept open and to offer a wide range of services. So long as I am in this House, which is only until the next general election, I shall defend as strongly as I can their right to those local services, and I look to my right hon. and learned Friend for a positive response.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I want to take this opportunity to urge the Leader of the House not to allow the House to go into recess until we have debated three items. I shall be as brief as I can because several other hon. Members want to speak too——

Mr. Tony Banks: That's enough, Bob.

Mr. Cryer: I am surprised that my hon. Friend has interjected because he has raised my first item on the Floor of the House.
I refer to Bradford under Labour control. Labour had a massive win at the last local elections, swept Pickles and his cronies from office and dumped them in the garbage can of history where they so rightly belong. The subject was raised at Question Time in the context of the Labour-controlled council's discussion of priorities. The Minister who holds the poisoned chalice of the poll tax, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo), said in reply to an intervention by a Tory Member that he had contacted the leader of the dwindling number of Tories on Bradford council—the discredited Eric Pickles.
What right has the Minister, in an official capacity, to contact the person who led the defeated group, who is no longer in office and who has been shown that the people of Bradford no longer want him as part of their administration? If Ministers have contacts to make with Bradford, they should surely be with the leader of the council or with the chairman of the appropriate committee on the council. Any contacts must be with the elected majority group; otherwise, they are a deliberate snub to the massive majority in Bradford who got rid of the Tory majority and substituted a Labour majority. I am staggered that a Minister could say in the Chamber that he had contacted the discredited minority leader of Bradford in an official capacity.
If the Minister wants to go to Bradford as a Tory Member and try whistling in the wind for a few Tory voters, he is entitled to do that, but as a member of the Government he must perforce negotiate with the elected majority. I know that the Government want to get rid of local democracy and to trample the rights of local government into the dirt, but they have not managed to do that.
The people of Bradford have given a loud and clear message that they want a Labour-controlled council and Ministers must conduct negotiations with that council. The leadership on Bradford council has made it clear that by law the council must deliver certain services. Those services will not be prejudiced in any way, except of course through cuts by central Government. It is up to central Government to provide the money so that Bradford council under Labour control can deliver the services that are required by law.
Because of the difficulties created by inheriting a Conservative budget, the council will inevitably discuss priorities and will try to reverse the cuts which Pickles and his cronies introduced in Bradford. The sacking of teachers and other local authority workers was in the pipeline. Bradford council wants to improve and maintain services and to restore education and housing after the ravages of Conservative control. I am surprised that any Minister can defy the democratic will of the people of Bradford, and I shall keep a close eye on the way in which the Government behave. I expect them to have negotiations in good faith with the Labour majority in Bradford and I hope that they will negotiate better poll tax support grants for the future.
Secondly, I draw to the attention of the Leader of the House some evidence that was published today by the Select Committee on Members' Interests. It is the minutes of evidence on parliamentary lobbying. One of the lobbying organisations in the study is a firm called Ian Greer Associates. Before I was on that Committee, Ian

Greer gave evidence to the effect that he had nothing to do with Members of Parliament, that he did not pay them and that he kept them at arm's length. The evidence states:
You are completely dissociated from them? A. That is correct.
Subsequently, Mr. Andrew Roth produced some interesting evidence that, far from being dissociated as Mr. Greer claimed, five hon. Members introduced business to Mr. Greer and obtained a commission. Apparently only one of the five took the trouble to declare his interest in the matter. Several large sums are likely to be involved. For example, one of the accounts was with British Airways. We can assume that the amount involved is perhaps several hundred thousands a year. A commission of 5 per cent. of that is big money, and it was alleged that the commission was greater than 5 per cent.
A Select Committee was dealing with this matter, which means that it is an important constitutional issue. Select Committees have the power to call for persons and papers, and they expect people to give evidence in good faith. Mr. Greer told the Committee that he could not name the hon. Members to whom he had paid the money. He said that it was not his responsibility, and even said that he did not have any responsibility for advising them to register their interests. In reply to a question from me, Mr. Greer agreed that with hindsight he might in future advise hon. Members to register.
People who are called before a Select Committee should give the fullest possible evidence and should not deny information about payments that they have made to hon. Members. I spoke earlier about local authority interests. If payments had been made to members of a council, the House would have been outraged and would immediately have called for disclosure of those payments.
I hope that the Leader of the House can arrange for an early debate or that he will take into account the published evidence and issue a statement suggesting that all hon. Members should register all their interests, and that, if four hon. Members have omitted to do so, they should rectify that omission as quickly as possible. I am sure that you will agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is important for hon. Members to follow the rules of the House. Those rules, set out in the reports of 1974–75, say that hon. Members should declare interests that affect their conduct as Members of Parliament or that might be thought to affect their conduct. That category exactly fits the situation that I have described.
I shall now continue the argument that I started in an Adjournment debate, which is that we should not go into recess until we have had a full-scale debate on the sell-off by the Government of the skill centres. I assure the House that this issue will not go away. I remind the House that the Government decided to sell 60 skill centres, asked for bids and issued a document through Deloitte Haskins and Sells. The document was handed over on the understanding that it was secret and had to be handed back.
If the Government invited bids for a business and then secretly informed one bidder that £11 million was to be made available, I am sure that Conservative Members would regard that as completely unfair. They would regard it as even more unfair if they learned that the three people who made the successful bid and received the £11 million were the three senior civil servants who were in charge of the skill centres in the first place. Moreover, the Minister


has refused to reveal the price received for the sale of 27 skill centres to Astra Training Services, an organisation produced by the three civil servants.
There is a cloak of secrecy. Time and again, the Minister produced bland platitudes and he will not say how much taxpayers' land has been sold. He will not confirm that no other bidder received the £11 million, although the other bidders, several of whom I have contacted, have told me that they had received no information about the £11 million. The Motor Traders Training Association approached the Government and asked if any money was available to carry on training but it was told that no money was available. If the association was told that by a civil servant who was associated with the project, it looks not just casual or incompetent, but sinister.
The story from the bidders is that, when they went to the skill centres, they were not allowed to get the full information that they needed to make their bids. When they asked the Government and civil servants for information about trade union agreements—it was a condition of the sale that such agreements should be honoured—they were not given that information. If that is the case—and allegations have been made to me by bidders, none of whom was told about the £11 million, so all have a common cause of concern—it is more than incompetence. It is the deliberate obstruction of bids so that insider dealers, the civil servants, could purchase the skill centres. This is a matter of scandalous proportions.
The total value of the centres is about £130 million, including land and the assets on it. Those have been virtually given away, together with £11 million of taxpayers' money, and no prices have been revealed for the sale. In another case, £2 million has been handed to a training consortium, again without any acknowledgement of the arrangements that were involved. These matters must come before the House as soon as possible, so that we can have a full investigation and, hopefully, some remedial action. It is a seedy rip-off of the taxpayers by a clique of civil servants operating from the inside.

Mr. Chris Butler: I am returning to the subject of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, not only because I failed to catch the eye of Madam Deputy Speaker on Monday but because I believe that it is important for the Government to restore public credibility before and during the recess and because the public need the Government to apply as much reassurance, frankness and caution as possible in this matter. BSE is leading people to think deeply about recycling animal proteins—sometimes even diseased animal proteins—back into the animal food chain, particularly for those animals which are naturally herbivores. This has already led to serious animal health problems. The drive for ever more efficient and cost effective ways to produce food has led to hidden costs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) will attest.
We think—we do not know—that BSE is caused by the same agent as scrapie. If it is, there may be parallels with the vertical transmission that we find in scrapie. The Southwood report referred to the placenta as "highly infectious" so it would not be surprising to find that BSE

is vertically transmissible. If BSE is the same agent as scrapie, then this organism has passed not only the species barrier but the genus barrier. It has jumped a whole sub-family. That makes me feel very uneasy.
The Tyrrell intermediate consultation committee said:
Experience with scrapie suggests that many species may be susceptible to BSE.
Therefore, I was disturbed when I received a written answer that said:
there is no scientific reason why the offals should not be incorporated into feedstuffs for non-ruminant animals. It is up to countries importing protein material from the United Kingdom to determine the conditions under which such imports may take place in the full knowledge they have about the disease and its likely cause."—[Official Report, 13 February 1990; Vol. 167, c. 197.]
We have no assurance that this disease may pass to animals other than ruminants. It could be that their lifespans are too short for them to develop the disease and show clinical signs. The Tyrrell committee said that pigs and chickens "may" act as sources of infection for man. It would be far better to incinerate all offal, so that the sub-virus reaches a dead end and is not passed around in an incestuous food chain, perhaps ending up on man's dinner plate.
It shows a rather nonchalant attitude towards other countries, some of them Third-world countries, to say that they can take some of these tainted materials—it is up to them, it is their risk, they take it in full knowledge. That is rather like the debates that we had about sending waste to the Third world. We should not pass around these materials to other countries and we certainly should not try to make a profit out of them abroad when we do not make a profit out of them in this country. We know that these materials are dangerous, and we do not have full knowledge of what they may cause. Other countries may not have such developed systems of governance or developed veterinary systems, and we should not put them to the test in this way.
We know that spongiform encephalopathies are transmissible to man and that in man they may take up to 30 years to develop. Doctor H. C. Grant, MD, FRCP, a neuropathologist at the Charing Cross hospital, has put forward his expert view:
The Southwood report claims that the risk of humans catching the disease is 'remote', but the truth is that we do not know if it is remote. Experts doubtless thought the likelihood of cattle catching the disease was remote when they first fed scrapie-infected material to cattle in 1981.
The Southwood report said:
It may be a decade or more before complete reassurance can be given.
If we cannot give complete reassurance, we should approach the matter with the utmost caution. I welcome the Government's decision to review the method of stripping out brains and spinal material from carcases, because it could be that the splatter of this nervous material on to red meat will defy the purpose of performing the operation. There may be better ways to do it.
In the debate on whether carcases should be buried or burnt, there should be a preference for burning, because we know that that organism is highly resistant and can be destroyed only by burning or powerful corrosive acids. I noted that, in a reply to a question from the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who unfortunately is not here today, my hon. Friend the Minister said:


Spongiform encephalopathies have never been recorded in domestic pets. Moreover, the industry's policy is not to use these materials. There is thus no need for regulatory action."—[Official Report, 2 February 1990; Vol. 166, c. 409.]
On 14 February, in the First Standing Committee on European Documents, I called for a legislative ban on these materials being recycled into the pet food chain. There are responsible operators who will keep this material out of the petfood chain, but that does not allow for the irresponsible operators, who may be out to make a quick profit from recycling these materials.
The experts who had never recorded the transfer of spongiform encephalopathies have now recorded the transfer of them to domestic pets, strengthening my argument that there should be legislative action on this point. The Tyrrell committee called in June 1989 for a random survey of cattle brains at the point of slaughter. The Government should give this more urgency than that afforded to it by the committee. Not only would such a survey give a better fix on the incidence of this disease: it might give greater reassurance to the public that they are not receiving meat that has already been infected and that has developed the disease but is not yet showing clinical signs of it. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend agrees that it would not be right for humans to be fed such meat. Just because this policy has been espoused by the Labour party does not mean that it should not be adopted.

Mr. David Winnick: Given his concluding remarks, the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) should not be surprised when I say that my hon. Friends and I much agree with most of the points in his speech.
It would be useful, before we went into the recess, for the House to receive details about the appointment of the Secretary of State for Energy as the co-ordinator of Government information. The media were given the news by No. 10 Downing street, but the House was not. Can we table questions about this aspect of Government activity? If not, why not? Ministers are supposed to be accountable to the House. When I raised this matter yesterday on a point of order, Mr. Speaker said that he understood that it was an unofficial arrangement. What does that mean?
Why did the job go to the Secretary of State for Energy? Why did it not go to the most natural person—the Leader of the House? He always maintains that he has a close working arrangement with the Prime Minister, even if they meet only weekly at meetings and apparently can hardly bear to say much to each other. Surely the responsibilities of the Leader of the House are not so heavy that he could not take on these added responsibilities for co-ordinating information.
If the Leader of the House is out of the picture, why did not the appointment go to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster? As we all know, he is the current chairman of the Conservative party and, unlike his immediate predecessor, the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, is keen on a high-level profile. I should have thought that the job of co-ordinating Government information, or lying, whatever one wants to call it, was right up that right hon. Gentleman's street. Why was not the job given to him? Though after the farce of yesterday's "summer offensive," which came unstuck within a matter of hours, perhaps the Prime Minister was not altogether

wrong, I must admit, in coming to the conclusion that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was not quite the right person for the job.
It appears that the political columnist of The Independent was told yesterday by an admirer of the Secretary of State for Energy, who has been given the job of co-ordinating Government information, that the latter has no ambitions, no thoughts of his own—that we can readily accept—and that his one desire and purpose in life is to anticipate the Prime Minister's every wish. The columnist added that this means that the Prime Minister has put herself in charge of winning the next general election. It is not for me to say whether that is good news for Tory Members.
In an article in today's Guardian the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow)—we can all agree that the hon. Gentleman is certainly no wet, and is as Stalinist a right-wing Tory as one could find—said that the chairman of the Tory party has stated loyally that we must not drop the pilot. The hon. Gentleman comments:
But he would, wouldn't he?
In the same article the hon. Gentleman tells us that the
topic of the Tory leadership is never far from Tory MPs conversation—paternalist or Thatcherite, Backbencher, or junior Minister.
The hon. Gentleman adds:
Sticking to the pilot we have got may not, however, provide a safe passage now that we are moving into new and uncharted waters.
The hon. Gentleman then speculates on the change of leadership. Has he suddenly become an admirer of the pretender to the present throne, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)?
There has been much in the press in the past two or three days of the possibility that there will be a general election in June 1991. It seems that the press has been fed a good deal of information that it could be next June. We shall see in due course. Downing street has been extremely busy I believe feeding the press with the possible date of next June to avoid a leadership election this autumn. If Tory Members are persuaded that the period before the next general election is limited, that they should not rock the boat and that the election will be as early as June 1991, they may be less willing to participate in a leadership campaign unlike last year.
As I said, I think that we are entitled to answers. We are entitled to know the precise duties and further responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Energy. We are also entitled to know whether he will answer our questions on the Floor of the House relating to Government information matters following our opportunity to table them. These are matters of concern that should be dealt with by the Leader of the House when he replies.

Mr. John Carlisle: Having sat on the Conservative Benches for about 11 years, I have heard several of the speeches of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), but never have I heard such nonsense and cynicism expressed in the Chamber as that which I so recently heard. The hon. Gentleman must begin to understand, even at his rather mature age and with his long experience in this place, that it will not do to present to the House spurious information which is of no interest to my right hon. and hon. Friends and of even less interest,


if that is possible, to his own right hon. and hon. Friends. The hon. Gentleman is an embarrassment to his constituents and to his party.
I am about to disappoint the hon. Member for Walsall, North even more. He probably expected my few remarks to be related to South Africa, which is one of our favourite topics. I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House, with his vast experience of foreign affairs during his distinguished time as Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, would also show an interest in South Africa. However, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister having correctly said yesterday that sanctions are no longer an issue and that the Government consider them to be irrelevant after the excellent and successful meeting with President de Klerk in South Africa, I feel that it is appropriate at this stage to rest my case.
I wish to bring to the attention of the House before the recess a matter which is attendant to a subject that the House has been discussing during the past few days in various degrees of hilarity and seriousness—local government expenditure. I shall refer especially to local expenditure in Bedfordshire and in Luton. Anyone from outside this place who had visited it in the past 24 hours might have gone away feeling somewhat confused as to the Opposition's position. Yesterday, the Social Democrats fantasised about a local income tax. I believe that one of their speakers claimed that it would counteract the community charge that the Government have introduced, which he claimed has intruded on people's private lives. If anything intruded on private lives, it would surely be town hall bureaucrats investigating our constituents' Inland Revenue affairs. Today the hilarity was produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), who dealt admirably with the roof tax on which the Labour party seems to be hooked, although not even that is certain in these uncertain times for that party. The polls show that it is slipping further towards the level of popularity of the Conservative party. It seems that the Labour party is entirely confused as to what its policy should be.
What is not confusing to those of us in the real world is that the wrath which has been heaped upon my right hon. and hon. Friends in the past few months has not been the result of the Government's actions. Virtually all of it has been the result of high-spending local authorities, especially those controlled by the Labour party. In Bedfordshire, the Labour and Liberal hung councils took the opportunity, as they did in 1974, to impose upon the unwitting community charge payers—previously it was the ratepayers—massive increases in spending without any justification, knowing that they would not have to face the brunt of the anger that that would generate.
It is interesting that now that community charge bills have landed on doorsteps and people are beginning to pay—and those who thought that they would not enjoy rebates are enjoying them—the tone of correspondence has changed dramatically to my mind and in my experience. People are beginning to realise that it is not the Government's fault that in Bedfordshire, and in my constituency, there are community charge bills of more than £400 per person. They are beginning to understand that their bills are the result of the reckless spending of county authorities, and in some instances borough

authorities, which have decided to spend other people's money without any thought of where further moneys will come from.
The position in Bedfordshire is especially sad. Regrettably, it has always been a county of high-spending authorities. When the Conservative party lost control of the county council, good housekeeper that it was, people in monkey suits in Bedford county hall took control. They have taken no account of the ability of community charge payers, or of residents generally, to pay. To my mind, there is no doubt as to exactly where the blame lies. Over the years, the Labour-Liberal-controlled council has almost exceeded its wildest dreams in its excesses and in the burdens that it has placed upon us.
For example, some years ago, and following the spending of about £50,000, we became a nuclear-free zone. I am not sure whether the Bedfordshire ratepayers felt any better for that, but we were sore that such a sum was spent on their behalf changing signs. There was an attempt to twin with a black township in South Africa. That may seem creditable to Labour Members, but a great deal of money was spent on a political exercise which had no bearing on the well-being of the unfortunate citizens of the township or on the well-being of the ratepayers whom the authority purported to represent. Many a long hour in the council chamber has been spent debating freedom for Nicaragua, tropical rain forests, whether the BBC should move from Cambridge to Norwich——

Mr. Tony Banks: We should all be interested in rain forests.

Mr. Carlisle: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the rain forests are important, but the council is prepared to spend time and money debating subjects which have little or nothing to do with the needs of the people whom it purports to represent. To cap it all, in its expenditure plans for 1990–91—which were vigorously opposed by the Conservative group on the county council—it has proposed and brought in a massive increase in spending, which is totally unjustified. The justification for such spending is questionable. That is not just my opinion, as someone with a political axe to grind, but the opinion of the independent Audit Commission, which has made extensive surveys on local authorities' financing and budgeting in the past, as many hon. Members will know.
The Audit Commission has consistently found that since Bedfordshire county council passed into Labour and Liberal control it has been a high-spending council and that in a majority of cases spending is excessively high and exceeds other comparable county councils—this year it is some £23 million. Bedfordshire is way above the family average in terms of spending on particular services.
Education is the greatest spender, and Bedfordshire spends some 14 per cent. more on the number of teachers and on teachers' salaries than other councils in the basket of comparable authorities. If Bedfordshire had the best education system, if parents could say that their children were getting better education than anyone else and that examination results, even in the difficult areas—some of which are in my constituency—are better than in comparable councils and that people regard it as worth moving to Bedfordshire for that education, I would not complain. In surveys conducted recently by Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools, however, Bedfordshire has consistently come near the bottom of the table for


examination results and qualifications. That does not justify the enormous expenditure by an authority which is under political control. The Audit Commission rightly criticised the authority's organisation and management and said that spending on secondary education far exceeds what is required and that, in its analysis, the spending policy is basically flawed.
Part of the problem is that those who purport to represent the people of Bedfordshire in county hall will not bite the bullet and take the tough decisions to reduce the number of schools that a Tory council would have taken if it were in power. Item 14 of Bedfordshire county council's audit of accounts 1988–89 states:
There are too many schools. Up to 30 per cent. of the places available are unfilled.
That is a disgrace and means that between 10 and 12 schools should be closed if the authority wants to make money available to improve services which need improvement—for example, special areas, provision for the young, and facilities for sixth forms. The authority could save money if it had the courage to take those political decisions, but it refuses to do so.
The Audit Commission goes on to say that something must be done
to reduce the present imbalance between school places and overall pupil numbers.
On that basis alone, some £5 million per annum—possibly more—would be saved.
Social service expenditure by Bedfordshire county council is some 15 per cent. above the average. If our old people's homes were the best in the country I would not say a word about it. If every child in care in Bedfordshire had better treatment than children elsewhere I would not complain, but regrettably there is gross inefficiency within the service, although people who work in those hard-pressed services try hard. Savings could be made and have been identified by the Audit Commission. The tragedy is that, while we have an authority in power whose business seems to be to spend other people's money, those savings will not be made.
This year, once again, despite the difficulties that we face—I acknowledge that the new legislative requirements that the Government have rightly put upon local authorities have created more—the council still refuses to make savings and consequently to improve services. As the years go by, the situation snowballs. If Bedfordshire continues to be run by virtual loonies from country hall who continue with the same policy, we shall be in severe difficulties.
If my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House takes one message back to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and to the new Minister of State, it should be that any alterations made to the community charge—I am suspicious of any alterations—must not give more money to authorities such as Bedfordshire, which will only spend the money willy-nilly, without thought for our constituents.
Not long ago my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) made certain suggestions in The Times about changes in the structure of local authorities. Some of those ideas were taken up today in an excellent article by Simon Heifer in The Daily Telegraph, which I recommend to my hon. Friends. With more energy and virulence than my right hon. Friend the Member for

Henley, Mr. Heffer says that it is about time that we abolished county councils. They represent a level of local government that has become unnecessary.
If a message came out of the local election results—particularly the wonderful results enjoyed by the Conservative party in Wandsworth and Westminster—it is that if small local authorities can control spending and their destiny, as Wandsworth and Westminster have done since the GLC disappeared, there is some chance that the community charge system will make those spending the money accountable. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House will take that on board, and if he does not recommend that action be taken before the House rises for the spring recess, he should certainly recommend that it be a part of the manifesto for the next Conservative Government in the 1990s.
The county councils are a level of government over-burdened by bureaucrats. They are expensive and do not work. Many of my constituents in Luton long for the days when the borough controlled its own education and social services. The small size of such a committee is attractive and must appear so to most hon. Members. We felt that we could control our own destiny, and it would be on our own heads. Wandsworth and Westminster have proved that only on that basis have we any chance of controlling local government expenditure, which seems to go up and up, especially in counties which are Liberal or Labour-controlled.
I have some sympathy for the idea of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley about an election each year. I believe there should be elections on a three-year basis, as happens in some local authorities now. We must abolish the larger tier of local government, which has become unwieldy and an excuse for representatives who are not fit to be in government for all sorts of reasons. We would then get representatives who are far closer to the electorate—the charge payers.
As the House rises for a short holiday at Whitsun, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House will think of the people of Bedfordshire and the burden placed upon them by the Liberal-Labour-controlled council, and that he and his colleagues will come back to the House with radical proposals for the next Conservative Government which will make local authorities far more accountable and ensure that we never have such Liberal-Labour overspending again.

Mr. Tony Banks: I disagree with virtually every word uttered by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle). That will not surprise him. At least I congratulate him on making a speech other than on South Africa. Given the speeches that he makes in this place, I was beginning to think that he represented Pretoria, North rather than Luton, North. He referred to a number of issues to which I am sure we shall return. The future of the shire counties is being debated within the Labour party. Their future will form part of our proposals when we come to power.
I intend to refer to an anniversary that has passed largely unnoticed this week; it is an anniversary that I know the Prime Minister would prefer to forget. Nearly two years ago, she was present at a ceremony at Battersea. power station. She went there for one of those ubiquitous. photo opportunities that she gets. She was seen with Mr.


John Broome, the developer. She described him as a man of enterprise and vision. His enterprise and vision was to turn Battersea power station into a pleasure dome.
The Prime Minister was there to give encouragement to Mr. Broome. She hailed him as one of the best examples of Thatcherism in practice. Mr. Broome, no doubt warming to the theme, having been encouraged by the Prime Minister in that way, gave an enormous hostage to fortune, as it turned out, by saying to the Prime Minister, "I shall invite you back on 21 May 1990 at 2.30 pm in order to unveil this great development. If you come at 2.33, Ma'am, you will have missed it." The Prime Minister was chuffed, as she often is by hearing words of that sort—bravura, bravado, call it what you will. However, the right hon. Lady still has a decade or so in which to wander down to Battersea, where she will find that she has missed nothing, given the present sad state of dereliction of that wonderful building.
The Prime Minister was right to say that the proposed development was a symbol of Thatcherism—of Flash Harrys with flash ideas, leading ultimately to failure. One could take it a stage further and say that Battersea power station as it exists at the moment is a symbol of the country—an empty shell, its grandeur and glory gone, decaying away due to inefficiency, neglect and lack of care. That symbol of dereliction, just a few miles down river at Battersea, is a symbol of the country. The power station is a derelict eyesore.
The Secretary of State will probably soon receive a request for Battersea power station's listed building status to be lifted so that the power station can be demolished. If the wind, the rain and the weather have not done that already for Mr. Broome, that is what the Government will be asked to agree to, and they will be as derelict as that building if they are prepared to allow that to happen. There ought to be shame on the Conservative Benches. Certainly there ought to be shame in No. 10 Downing street for having gone along with this carnival, this festival that has had such an unhappy ending, the problem still not having been resolved.
Battersea power station is a London landmark. Many of us have come to love that building. [Interruption.] The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) laughs and thinks that that is a joke, but many Londoners look with great warmth and affection on that building. Previously they derived great warmth from it. To see it in its present bad state is no laughing matter.
The Government have been extremely casual with public assets. By means of their privatisation proposals, they have given them away. What Lady Porter did with the three Westminster cemeteries, the Government have done regularly with many public assets. They have given many of them away, together with sweeteners. Privatisation is nonsense in that respect, and we know it.
I want to compare briefly what happened to Battersea power station with what might happen to county hall. Proposals are now coming forward that are not entirely dissimilar to Mr. Broome's proposals for Battersea power station. The county hall proposals are for a luxury hotel, offices, a business centre, an amusement park and luxury flats—all the Flash Harry ideas that Mr. Broome had for Battersea power station. I disagree with the proposals. The Secretary of State is considering—[Interruption.] I intend

to say what I should like county hall to be used for. The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown) knows exactly what I intend to say.
The considerations arising from the public planning inquiry are now sitting on the Secretary of State's desk; he will undoubtedly deliberate upon them, and he ought to bring them to the House so that they can be fully debated. The House has an interest in what is being proposed for a building on the other side of the river that is within our line of vision. We ought to decide whether we are happy with the proposals. I disagree fundamentally with them; they involve the spending of a great deal of money.
The Secretary of State has to decide whether the new Flash Harrys on the south bank will have the resources to carry out their proposals. I have seen little evidence of their financial assets being sufficient to fund the proposed development. We do not want to end up with a Battersea power station problem immediately opposite us on the other side of the river—county hall with its roof off and the builders walking off site because the money has run out. Despite the fact that I intensely dislike the proposals, I want the Secretary of State at least to ensure that the developers have the financial wherewithal to complete their development.
I despise the proposals. It is a political decision. The former Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), said on one occasion that he would like county hall to be demolished brick by brick. He could not demolish it, because it is a listed building. However, political symbolism makes the Tory Government want county hall to be used for a purpose that is totally outwith its previous function. County hall was built with inner-London ratepayers' money. It was built as a centre for London local government. It is a symbol of local democracy in London—the local democracy that this Government have done so much to undermine and destroy. We want couny hall to remain in its original form and to be used for its purpose—as the seat of London local government.
I am delighted to know that among the welter of policy proposals that are about to be launched upon a grateful nation by the Labour party there is one that states that a Labour Government will restore London-wide local government. There will be a new London council. We must ensure that it is based in county hall. I want to extract from Opposition Front Bench spokesmen—not my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench now, so he need not worry too much about it—an undertaking that, if the Secretary of State for the Environment allows a hotel to be developed on the county hall site, a Labour Government will take it back by means of compulsory purchase.
Who would that upset? It would upset the developers, the Flash Harrys. I could not give a monkey's toss for them, nor would many Londoners. It may upset a few rich tourists. I am sorry for them, but there are plenty of luxury hotels for them in and around London. If the Labour party in opposition and then in government were to give such a pledge, most of the people of London would support them. It would be a politically popular move.
As long as I draw breath in this House, which I hope will be for some years to come, I shall strive to get county hall back into public ownership to act as the headquarters of London local government. I have great confidence that I shall succeed.

Sir John Stokes: Before we adjourn for the spring recess, I wish to discuss the teaching of history in our schools. The subject has been greatly ventilated in recent weeks and we have also received the final report of the history working group of the national curriculum.
A knowledge of history is absolutely essential if we are to retain our identity as a nation. It is most important that our children should understand what has made our country—its origins and its development through the centuries until the present time. It is essential that they should know how our small island on the edge of the continent of Europe was first colonised by Rome, passed through the so-called dark ages into the flowering of Anglo-Saxon civilisation followed by the Norman conquest and the feudal system, the wars of the roses when the aristocracy nearly destroyed itself, the reformation and the Tudor monarchy, the wars against France which we usually won, our own civil war, the growth and development of the British empire which at one time encompassed a quarter of the world—and what happy days they were—the rise of democracy and the two great wars this century.
Some people are shy about dwelling too much on our island history for fear of upsetting the immigrants among us. That is a mistaken view. Immigrants, like everyone else, expect us to be true to ourselves and to our history and identity as a nation.
Children should be made to learn the dates of the great events of past centuries. That is not just dull learning by rote; it will give them a framework in which to place all those unfolding events and to understand how they relate to one another. They will thus in due course begin to realise the remarkable continuity of the history of our small island. Incidentally, my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) recently remarked that what we are all about in this place is the continuity of history.
Children should know about kings, queens, statesmen and other leaders; and about battles and other great events. But that does not mean that they should neglect social, domestic and occasionally local history. While for most people in the United Kingdom history tends to be mainly the history of England, that does not mean that events in Scotland, Wales and Ireland should be ignored.

Mr. Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir John Stokes: No. Many hon. Members still wish to speak and we have only one more hour.
We are an old nation with roots going a long way back, unlike some of the newer nations in Europe, and it is essential that children should appreciate that. I have always been fascinated by the continuity of our history—for instance, the coronation rite, which goes back to before the Norman conquest, and the monarchy that can trace its ancestry back to King Alfred in Saxon times, the continued existence of the House of Lords and the hereditary peers of whom I am so fond, the tradition and procedures of the Chamber, our jury system and the English common law, the many words and phrases in the English language which go back for centuries and our wonderful heritage of cathedrals, churches, castles and country houses and the ancient towns and villages that we all love so much.
We have been most fortunate in not having been conquered since 1066, and our internal wars were mild compared with the fearful struggles on the continent. Our island status, guarded in the old days by a powerful navy, has kept our country intact.
The growth of the British empire and the trade that followed it is a romance in itself. The colonisation of north America and its subsequent successful rebellion is a unique story and our influence in America has been profound.
The more one studies our history and development, which are so different from those of nations on the continent, the more necessary it is to examine with great care, if not with suspicion, any proposals for our ancient country to join a new European federation. We are not a highly centralised country. We never had a Code Napoleon, but only a common-sense common law. Nor do we have a written constitution. We are a practical, not a theoretical, people; a kindly, tolerant, gentle people, slow to wrath but very angry and determined when need be; perhaps a people inclined to be lazy but capable of immense exertions in a crisis.
There is a great deal to be proud of in our history, despite some shaming events from time to time, such as our treatment of Ireland, but there is nothing wrong in being proud of our past. We in Parliament are trustees or posterity and must hand on the torch of our civilisation to succeeding generations. We have contributed a great deal to the civilisation of the world and we should be proud of that. We still have a great deal to give the world and we. should rejoice in that. I am happy to say that at present our standing among nations remains high.

Mr. Harry Barnes: One of the achievements in our history of which we should be proud is the development of the franchise—the struggle in 1832 to reform Parliament and to establish more equal and equitable electoral districts, the struggle throughout the later 19th century, especially by the Chartists, to establish a universal franchise for men, the struggle of the suffragettes in the 20th century, and finally the achievement of the universal franchise based upon people's residential rights that was finally established in 1928.
The pride that we take in the development of the franchise should be demonstrated by our intention to ensure that nothing removes or undermines it, but to extend democracy and the participation and involvement of the British people who struggled so hard to achieve electoral rights. But what is happening now? There are great problems about the state of the franchise. The franchise is being undermined and nibbled away by one piece of legislation in particular which cannot be reformed or altered to avoid that serious effect. That measure is of course the poll tax.
Before 1987, there was a close correlation between the numbers on the electoral register and the estimated population of those over 18. As we have a universal franchise and reasonable techniques for calculating the population, one would expect those figures to approximate. However, since 1987, the figures have started to deviate, initially in Scotland but now in England and Wales but not in Northern Ireland, which has a distinct advantage in not having the poll tax.
It is clear that the major factor undermining the electoral register is the poll tax. The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys recognises that the decline in registration is due not to demographic factors or changes in the age structure of the population but to non-registration. If offers a number of reasons. The Prime Minister wrote to me suggesting that the decline in registration in 1989 may have been due to the postal strike of September 1988. The decline in Scotland was not associated with a postal strike, and the poll tax was introduced a year earlier in Scotland than in England. The poll tax factor on electoral registration operated earlier.
The poll tax register and the electoral register overlap considerably. The principles of accountability, on which the poll tax was based, are similar to those for electoral registration. If people are desperate, they take desperate remedies to protect themselves. People are not registering for the poll tax, but realising that their names still appear on the electoral register. That applies even to people who are only just 18, because the poll tax registrar can go back to past electoral rolls to discover missing names. Such people will not bother to register.
I asked the Library to produce evidence on the link between people aged 18 and over and electoral registration. In Great Britain, at least 1·5 per cent. of the population have disappeared from the electoral register. That amounts to more than 600,000 people, or 1,000 per constituency if it were evenly distributed throughout the country. But it will not be evenly distributed. There are obvious problems in some areas, such as in Glasgow, where, since the introduction of the poll tax, 40,000 people have disappeared from the electoral register, or 6·5 per cent.; in Liverpool 25,000 are missing, or 7·5 per cent.; and in the past two years in Finchley, the Prime Minister's constituency, 4·6 per cent. and 3·9 per cent. of people have disappeared from the electoral register.
I rang the electoral registration office in Finchley to ask about the reason for that under-registration. The answer was that it assumed it had something to do with the poll tax. Some opinion polls show that the Prime Minister may lose her seat at the next election, but another factor must be taken into account: those who were interviewed or their equivalents may not appear on the electoral register.
The people who have most to fear from the poll tax are those who will disappear from the electoral register. Masses of people are disappearing from it, especially in some areas. That is serious. It is doubly serious when we take into account a measure that the House passed recently to extend the expatriate vote on a voluntary basis—that is nonsense, given the obligatory franchise in this country—to 3 million overseas voters. If only 20 per cent. register, they will replace the 600,000 people who have been squeezed off the electoral register by the poll tax. That should worry hon. Members.
The Government's commitment to manipulating the franchise is greater than their commitment to ensuring that people appear on the register. Statistics on electoral registration advertising expenditure that I have obtained from the Prime Minister's office show that in 1988–89 only 0·3 per cent. of total advertising expenditure—£322,000—was spent on electoral registration. That contrasts

starkly with the £760,000 which has been spent on encouraging people to take up franchise rights overseas and to vote in our elections.
The electoral register is being manipulated. The franchise is being fixed and fiddled. Given the great sense of history in this Chamber, we should be as concerned about that as we are about some of the other great issues, such as the attack on the environment and the many dangers and injustices of much of the legislation that the Government have passed. If we lose the franchise, we lose one of our most sacred traditional rights. Hon. Members and everyone outside should be deeply concerned about that. We should ensure that the poll tax is abolished and that the franchise is fully and properly re-established in this country.

Sir Anthony Grant: On Monday, we spent quite a lot of time discussing mad cow disease, which has not infected anyone. In contrast, more than 5,000 people are slaughtered every year on our roads, more than 300,000 are injured and, of those, 60,000 are seriously injured. Before the House rises for the spring Adjournment, I should like to make a few remarks on the subject. I must declare an interest, because I have the honour to be the president of the Guild of Experienced Motorists.
There have recently been signs of an improvement in the number of road accidents. The creation of motorways was a positive step, because research shows that one is far less likely to have an accident on a motorway than on other roads. The anti-drink-driving campaign has been a success and should be maintained. We must bear in mind the fact that four out of every five accidents are not related to drink, and we should be applying our minds to those accidents.
There are more road accidents in East Anglia than in any other region of Britain. We are fortunate to have the best health in the country, probably the best employment record and much going for us, but it is a disgrace that so many people are slaughtered or injured on East Anglian roads. Within East Anglia, the record of the county of Cambridgeshire is the worst. The overall increase in road accidents in Cambridgeshire since 1984 is 16 per cent. On rural roads where the 40 mph speed limit does not apply, the increase is 28 per cent. and on trunk roads it is 25 per cent.
Since 1987, there have been different trends within the East Anglian region. The figures have decreased in Buckinghamshire and Bedfordshire, but have increased in Norfolk, Essex and Suffolk. Cambridgeshire has experienced the biggest increase of all, which is against the trend elsewhere in the region and country. There are several reasons for that. I shall highlight only two in this short debate. Suffice it to say that in my constituency the A45 and A505 are absolute death traps. It is a nightmare to drive along them and appalling to see time and time again in local newspapers or on local television the ghastly mangled wrecks which are the result of accidents that occur on those roads. That is not good enough in a society such as ours.
I know that the Government appreciate the problem. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), the then Secretary of State for Transport, said in July 1989 when introducing the White Paper:


The eastern region programme is being increased by over three and a half times … That reflects East Anglia's status as having the fastest growing economy in the country.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, in a reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord), said on 30 October 1989:
One of the main features of the White Paper was its recognition that East Anglia has an inadequate road infrastructure. There are substantial plans set out in the White Paper to produce an improvement, and we shall honour them."—[Official Report, 30 October 1989; Vol. 159, c. 4.]
Those are fine words, on which I entirely rely.
Meanwhile, it is unacceptable that the appalling casualties should continue in my part of the country. The slaughter on the roads results in more deaths than any other cause—more than heart disease, tumours, diseases of the respiratory system and air accidents, much more than bombs and certainly more than mad cow disease.
There are several general observations to be made on this subject. Research has shown that the first principal cause of road casualties is driving too fast for the conditions that prevail. Conditions on most British roads are unsuitable for the speed at which vehicles move. The other cause is driving too close behind the vehicle in front, a persistent nuisance. That can be overcome quite easily through technology if the will were there to compel vehicles to be technically adapted.
The driving test is still hopelessly inadequate and needs to be revised. It is ridiculous that people can crawl around a suburb in a little Mini and then step into the type of vehicle that needs to be handled with the skill of Nigel Mansell. Again, the penalties imposed are too feeble. There should be much greater use of the power of disqualification and of confiscation of the vehicle involved in the accident. There could be greater use of sleeping policemen in rural areas and villages. These have been found to be effective restraints on speed.
Manufacturers must show a greater sense of responsibility. What is the point of making relatively cheap cars for popular use which can travel at 140 mph when the speed limit everywhere is no higher than 70 mph? What is the point of producing cars with engines that require someone with the skill of Stirling Moss or Nigel Mansell to handle them? Often such cars are poorly maintained and the drivers do not have the skill required. They have completely inadequate training. Manufacturers have a responsibility to incorporate the latest safety devices. I am bound to comment that, if it had not been for Government action, manufacturers would probably not even insert brakes in vehicles.
All this mayhem and chaos on our roads results in dreadful loss of resources and expenditure, heavy burdens on our Health Service, pressure on our hard-pressed police, bereavement of families and bitter misery for those who are disabled for life, as all too many are. It is no consolation to them to be told that in Europe and in other countries the number of casualties is higher.
This matter deserves greater scrutiny both by Her Majesty's Government and by the press and the media. That is especially true in the county of Cambridgeshire.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: The tragic events in Israel's administered territories and Jordan this week have highlighted again the unhappy Arab-Israeli conflict and we should pause to think about the situation for a moment before we rise for the recess.
While elsewhere in the world there are so many encouraging and happy developments, it is depressing that in the middle east there is still unsettlement and misery. Naturally, Israel is blamed and comfort is given to her enemies by Governments who should know better, even if they feel that they cannot do better.
I do not believe for a moment that Israel has any other intention than to see that its nationhood survives secure and that it remains an independent, multi-racial democracy under the rule of law. I believe that when Israel turns to violence, it is forced to do so in order to survive as a nation and to protect its borders and people as any other nation under unremitting attack would have to do. When the intifada is violent, the containment cannot but be violent. If there were no uprising, no one would be wounded and no one would die.
When terrorism repeatedly strikes Israel from its foreign borders, as it has for many years, Israel has tried to end those attacks by building a buffer zone between it and the Lebanon. Sadly people die in the fighting which ensues. If there were no terrorism and no military attack on Israel, no one would be wounded and no one would die.
I believe that Israel wants to live in peace with its Arab neighbours. Its people are not warlike by nature and, because they were so often deprived of human rights, they have respect for the human rights of others, such as the Palestinians. It is inconceivable that Israel should want to use up either its human resources in endless fighting or its economic resources, which are difficult to come by, in the endless struggle for survival. If Israel's Arab neighbours were prepared to live in peace with Israel, there would be no daily killing or misery.
If Israel had nothing to fear from its neighbours it would not need to settle the high ground on the west bank to build defensive settlements and land for peace would be the bargain now being struck. Of course, Israel wants to settle the 1 million Jews from the Soviet Union, not only because they are fugitives from a country in which, as Jews, they were not welcome, but because the tiny state of Israel, which is so vulnerable to the sheer numbers alone of its neighbours, naturally wants to be stronger. If the United States and other countries in the world will not take the Soviet Jews, where else do we expect them to go?
So far, the settlement on the west bank has been widely exaggerated by those who have reported it. I understand that fewer than 1 per cent. of Jewish emigrants have settled on the west bank. That is 32 families in all—138 people. Of course, the whole situation is unsatisfactory and unhappy and there is conflict which results in hatred and the spilling of blood, so we ask yet again at this time how it will all end and whether we can help.
One thing is certain. We cannot reasonably expect Israel to agree with any state or organisation that it should commit suicide. The greatest problem is that the Arabs demand a Palestinian state at least to begin with on the west bank, but everyone who has the slightest knowledge or understanding of the area knows that such a development is impossible. It is impossible for the Palestinians because there is no water, energy, raw materials, or infrastructure and no body politic to govern such a barren place. It is impossible for the neighbours of such a state, be it Jordan, which has its own history of violence to contend with from the PLO, or be it Israel. No nation could permit an enemy which is sworn to destroy it to have its guns pointed at its heart from only a mile or two away. It is 10 miles from the border to Tel Aviv, which


could be taken out in a moment. How long would it be before the west bank state needed to expand into Jordan or Israel?
In opposing a PLO state on its borders, Israel is hardly being unreasonable, although without a stable Government speaking for all the people it is perhaps difficult for it to have a cohesive foreign policy. One of the reasons being advanced for maintaining the absurd proportional representation which has caused the political chaos in Israel is that if it were abolished it would remove the small Arab representation in the Knesset, which the Israeli Government does not want to do.
There is, of course, an Israeli peace plan—to have free democratic elections among the Palestinians in the territories, thus providing elected representatives who can negotiate with Israel without fear of Arab terrorism, and from which autonomy would automatically emerge. The plan would seek to ensure that the Palestinians enjoy that autonomy for three years while confidence builds up between the two sides and while a final acceptable status for the territories is worked out, and backed by the super-powers or the United Nations. I believe that, in practice, everything would be negotiable in such talks, as was the case when the hard-line Mr. Begin negotiated peace for land in the Sinai with President Sadat at Camp David, and peace with Egypt resulted.
It is asked why Israel will not talk to Arafat, the Palestinian leader. Did he not say in December 1988 that he would recognise the state of Israel and renounce terrorism? The answer is that the Israelis do not trust Arafat to deliver his promise—and nor should anyone else trust him. Why? First, it is because in the years since the renunciation of terrorism at Geneva there have been 13 terrorists attacks by Fatah inside Israel's 1967 borders, 17 border attacks by the PLO or affiliated organisations, including two Katyuska rocket attacks on kibbutzim in the Jordan valley, 15 infiltration attempts across all borders, including two by Fatah, and 125 Palestinians have been murdered on the directions of the "Unified Command" by which the PLO operates in the territories.
Either the PLO leader is responsible for the terrorism of the groups which operate under his umbrella of command, or he is not. If he is responsible, he has not renounced violence. If he is not responsible, how can anyone expect Israel to negotiate with a man who has no control over or ability to stop terrorist attacks on Israel? What security would there be for Israel if it negotiated with Arafat? If he is in complete control, let him call off the violence that has been going on in the territories for two and a half years—the intifada. That will prove his control and power and oblige Israel to recognise the strength. Israel might then talk to him.
The second reason why one should not trust Mr. Arafat—if more proof were wanted—is the speech that he made to senior Fatah military personnel in Baghdad on 6 April 1990, which was reported in the Paris-based Lebanese newspaper Al Muharrar on 10 April as follows:
Open fire on the new Jewish immigrants—be they from the Soviet Union, Ethiopia or anywhere else … I want you to shoot, on the ground or in the air, at every immigrant who thinks our land is a playground and who thinks that immigration to it is a vacation or a picnic …
Do not tell me that political decisions prevent us from military activity against immigrants. It makes no difference whether they live in a Jaffa"—

which is just inside the 1967 boundary—
or in Jericho. I give you explicit instructions to open fire, do everything to stop the flow of immigration … I give you my instructions to use violence against the immigrants. I will jail whoever refuses to do this. My words are not just a threat, they are the reality. From today on, I will incarcerate whoever refuses to obey my instructions … Today I publish my orders to use violence against the immigrants and I wll put anyone who fails into prison … I have already put into prison Palestinian ambassadors, members of the Revolutionary Councils and clergymen when they made a mistake. My decision and the decision of The Fatah to use violence must be carried out in real terms".
Is that a man of peace? Has the leopard changed its spots? How can that language inspire anyone to believe that Mr. Arafat can be trusted when he talks of peace? That speech was made six weeks ago and has not yet been denied by Mr. Arafat. Can anyone blame the Israelis for not trusting him to deliver? When Western Governments continue to pander to Arafat, to pretend that they accept his moderation and his renunciation of violence, is it any wonder that Israel loses patience with those who proffer such absurd advice?
Is there no hope then? Of course there is hope. There has to be. Camp David showed that there can be hope, however hopeless the situation might appear. If the Israelis get their political act together, speak strongly in one voice and start acting flexibly, there will be hope. If they continue their policy of not settling Jews on the west bank in large numbers—because that would set back the cause of peace—there will be hope. If the PLO genuinely stops its terrorism, if the Palestinians elect moderate representatives democratically, if the United Nations and other world powers make an effort to push the peace initiative forward with fairness and good sense, the situation is not hopeless.
I hope that as the House rises for this short recess the Government's determination to be more understanding about Israel's difficulties—and its refusal to accept the hollow assurances given for its security—will become more evident. Israel should not negotiate with unrepentant terrorists. It cannot be expected to negotiate with neighbours who hate its very existence. Provided that our own and other Governments recognise those facts, they will help the peace process because Israel will feel less alone and will be more willing to accept sensible international advice.

Mr. Keith Vaz: Before the House rises, I wish to raise briefly the case of one of my constituents, Mr. John Richardson. The House may think that this has become the Israeli half-hour, because I want to raise issues of concern that relate directly to Mr. Richardson's visit to Israel this morning. However, much of what the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said, which was interesting and to which I listened carefully, is not directly relevant to this case.
Mr. Richardson, who lives in Leicester, left for Israel this morning. He arrived in Tel Aviv at 4.45 this morning. Immediately on arrival, he was detained by the Israeli security services. He was allowed no direct contact with the British embassy, although he telephoned the embassy and asked for someone to go out to Tel Aviv airport. Mr. Richardson was sent back to Britain on the first plane. He arrived in Britain at 8.45 this morning and came to see me in Westminster at 1 o'clock because I was anxious to have the facts before raising this matter in the House.
Mr. Richardson was in Israel to attend a symposium. He was supposed to give a lecture in two days' time on the situation there. He is of impeccable character. I have known him—not only as a constituent, but also as a friend—for over six years. He is the commissioning editor for a newpaper, the Ithaca Press.
I am glad that the Leader of the House, the deputy Prime Minister, who has great experience of foreign affairs, is on the Treasury Bench, and I hope that he will press the Foreign Secretary at the earliest opportunity for a statement on the way in which British citizens are treated in Israel.
I refer also to the position of British Airways. When he left Tel Aviv airport, Mr. Richardson's passport was not given back to him. It was handed to a British Airways steward and was not returned to him until his return to Britain. We should examine carefully the role of our airways and airlines in immigration matters: it is wrong that a British citizen should have his passport retained by an air steward.
I raise the issue not because I can help Mr. Richardson by so doing—he left the House at 2.30 this afternoon and returned to Leicester—but to draw the House's attention to the fact that British citizens who are travelling in good faith to Israel are sometimes sent back without explanation on the first available flight. I hope that the matter will be taken up by the Leader of the House, and that he will mention the debate to the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: I am sure that the House will understand if I say that, much as I enjoy the privilege of speaking here, I wish I were somewhere else. Tonight I would like to be at the annual meeting of Wrekin district council, under the leadership of Councillor Malcolm Smith. Tonight Phil Heighway ends his one-year term in office as chairman, and is replaced by Graham Bould, with John Minor as his deputy. The council has been Labour-controlled since its inception, and that was greatly reinforced by a tremendous by-election result a week ago, when the Conservative vote of 1987 was halved, with the Conservative candidate coming third behind the Greens.
I have a specific matter to raise which relates to the responsibilities of the Leader of the House. I hope that the House will attempt to adjust its procedures—however uncomfortable that may be for some hon. Members—to the television age. For some six months, the nation has been looking at us, and it is perhaps time that we started looking at ourselves more critically.
It would be a mistake, however, not to refer to some of the contributions that have been made. It was notable that two Conservative Members spoke about the inadequacies of the Health Service. Opposition Members say "Hear, hear" to that. One Conservative Member made a telling contribution about the retirement age. I appreciate that issue only too well, especially the question of men who wish to retire at 60.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) made a powerful speech—which I am sure will receive universal approval—about the effects on haemophiliacs infected by the AIDS virus. What I liked about his speech was that he made specific recommendations, based on his experiences as a Minister, about how the matter should be resolved. I hope that the

Leader of the House takes to heart my right hon. Friend's comments about the treatment of Thalidomidevictims; perhaps that is an important precedent that could be applied in this case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) made a characteristically informed speech about the problems of the coal industry, about which he is, perhaps, better qualified to speak than any other hon. Member. He speaks from great personal knowledge. He pointed out the differences between the current possible round of redundancies and earlier ones, and I hope that the Leader of the House will refer to that in his reply.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (M r. Winnick) raised an issue that is dear to my heart: responsibility for Government communications and co-ordination. I am deputy to my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr. Cunningham). He now shadows three Secretaries of State in varying degrees—the Secretary of State for Energy, the Leader of the House and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and we await the possibility of more being added to the list. We can cope with them, but it would be nice to know exactly what their responsibilities are.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is not here now. He made an important contribution about the future of county hall. I hope that the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes), with his deep sense of history, would have seconded my hon. Friend's proposal. We do not want to see historic buildings turned into luxury hotels; they should once again be the seats of democracy that they were in the past.
While we are on a democratic note, let me add that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) made an effective speech about the impact of the poll tax on people's ability to vote. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) also referred to some of the injustices of the poll tax. The poll tax, the Health Service and democracy—those themes have recurred.
We should try to make our procedures more intelligible to people outside. For the past six months, the country has been looking at us with varying degrees of amazement, interest and ridicule. This motion is a classic example of our procedures. It is nearly 7 pm, and we are debating
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 24th May, do adjourn until Tuesday 5th June.
Suppose that we told any group of workers in the country that they could have a holiday next week, but that before they could have it there would need to be a three-hour debate, continuing until late in the evening. They would consider that a ludicrous proposition, and it would be passed without a vote. All hon. Members know that this is an opportunity for people to raise important issues, but surely we should be able to do that without calling an Adjournment debate.
The House should keep more sensible hours. I know that Conservative Members get worked up about the hours in the House. In the last full Session, we sat for longer than almost any other legislature in the world: at 2, 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning, I sometimes wonder to what effect. In the 1988–89 Session, the House sat for 175 days: on 121 of those days—about 70 per cent.—the debate continued until after 10.30 pm; on 80 days—about 40 per cent.—it continued until after midnight; and on 21 days it continued until after 2 am. I do not mind—and I am sure


that no other hon. Member minds—sitting in the middle of the night if we are considering critical issues of national importance, but in some Consolidated Fund debates I have addressed a massed audience of three hon. Members at 5 o'clock in the morning, and I am sure that there must be a more sensible way. I am amazed that the camera operator can stay awake at that time of night. Hon. Members should examine again the possibility of morning sittings.
I know that traditionalist Conservative Members will not like this, but I think that we should think again about the way in which we address each other in the House. I can refer to the man sitting opposite me as the Leader of the House, although not many people outside know what that means; I can refer to him as the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East—although I do not know whether he is learned until I hear his reply to the debate. But if I were to address him as Sir Geoffrey Howe, you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would rule me out of order—although that is what people know him as, just as I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford is Geoffrey Lofthouse. Why on earth can we not occasionally use the language of the real world? When we refer to someone as, for instance, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, the commentators who must make our proceedings intelligible to the world outside must say in hushed tones that we are referring to Edward Heath. Our next comments are then lost, because the commentary drowns them.—[Interruption] I am greatly encouraged that there is so much opposition from Conservative Members who want to retain the House as a completely unintelligible club.
What about the nonsensical way in which we ask questions at Prime Minister's Question Time? The Prime Minister is asked to list her official engagements for the day and on Tuesday she said:
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today."—[Official Report, 22 May 1990; Vol. 173, c. 16.]
On 10 May the Prime Minister replied to that same question:
This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today."—[Official Report, 10 May 1990; Vol. 172, c. 392.]
I could go on and on. Those answers are a waste of Hansard and a waste of the House's time. Twice a week we have a quarter of an hour of precious moments in which to question the Prime Minister, but each week we have inane questions and answers. I am all in favour of general questions, but not silly ones, and it should be possible to ask specific questions of the Prime Minister.
When the televising experiment comes to an end I hope that we will look more modestly and critically at the way in which we operate. A democracy will not work unless people understand what we are saying and our procedures. At the moment they leave a great deal to be desired and I hope that we shall improve them as quickly as possible.

7 pm

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott), if I am still

allowed to call him that, closed our proceedings with uncharacteristically acerbic observations. I thought that we could take comfort from the fact that this curious ritual of an Adjournment debate had enabled 18 hon. Members to raise a wide variety of issues in a short space of time, but I fear that I shall be unable to deal with all of them because the time allowed is too short.
With regard to the procedures of the House, the hon. Member for The Wrekin might like to notice that on Monday this week we announced a series of substantial reforms in the procedures relating to European Community matters. Yesterday we received a report from the Select Committee on Procedure which, if accepted, will reduce by 90 per cent. the number of questions tabled and will save about £750,000 a year, on which I look with favour. The hon. Gentleman will also note that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), answering for the House of Commons Commission, today gave an important reply about the work that the Commission has set in hand to review the management of the House. That is not too bad a record.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Sir B. Hayhoe) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) discussed National Health Service expenditure. I know that they join me in endorsing the spending on the NHS under the Government. That spending has never been higher. It has gone up by nearly 39 per cent. in real terms since we came into office and it will rise by more than £5 billion in the two years between 1989 and 1991. My right hon. Friend drew attention to the differential rate of expansion between the family practitioner services and hospital and community health services, but there has been an increase in spending on hospital and community health services of 36 per cent. in real terms since 1978–79.
There has been some impact in Leicestershire and elsewhere as a result of the shortfall in land sales and we hope that that will not endure for very long. The Leicestershire district, however, has received an increase of nearly 3 per cent. in real terms in the year in question. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton also asked about borrowing, but I cannot add to what has already been said by the Secretary of State for Health. I am more enthusiastic about the other issue raised by my hon. Friend when he urged those responsible to ensure the appointment of an Archbishop of Canterbury who unequivocally believes in God. I echo my hon. Friend's wish and I am sure that that proposition will commend itself to many.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) raised two specific issues with characteristic concern. The first related to the position of haemophiliacs infected with the HIV-AIDS virus. I can do no more than refer him to the speech of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health at the conclusion of the Adjournment debate on 9 May when he made plain that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would respond specifically and in considered form to the point which he had raised.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the childhood cancer, neuroblastoma. He will appreciate that following the Adjournment debate on 30 March there has been a change in Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State at the Department of Health. The new Parliamentary


Under-Secretary of State will be writing to the right hon. Gentleman in the very near future with the information that he requested.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) understandably raised the question of the possible equalisation of retirement conditions and used as the basis for his speech the recent judgment of the European Court of Justice. Obviously we need to address that question with increasing effectiveness. I say that with some feeling as the issue has been around for some time. I was part-author of two pamphlets in the late 1960s which commended some progress in this matter. Within her Majesty's Government I can be seen as a reasonably committed advocate of progress towards resolving the question and I shall not allow the issue to be forgotten.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed raised a number of points about the community charge which I shall certainly draw to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I believe that the House was particularly struck by his argument about second homes, albeit empty, which are required for retirement. It is worth reminding the hon. Gentleman that there is already a substantial discretion with local authorities in that respect. We cannot make any changes this year, but local authorities should exercise their discretion more generously.
The hon. Gentleman also expressed his anxiety about the possibility of a debate on the police regulations laid down in 1990. That anxiety was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward). The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed will appreciate that the business that the House debates is that which I announce at business questions, not what might have been discussed through the usual channels. Last week I told the House that there would be an opportunity to debate the regulations. The timing of that debate will remain to be agreed through the usual channels, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, speaking at the Police Federation conference today, said that such a debate will take place after the recess.

Mr. Latham: It could hardly be before it.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: No, but hon. Members may take some comfort in the fact that it will take place after it.
The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) raised a serious matter about the possible impact of changes in the fuel-burning policy of certain industries on employment in the coal industry. He will recognise that the installation of further flue gas desulphurisation plants is one option for meeting the tighter sulphur reduction targets after the turn of the century. It will be for British Coal to convince the generators that the cost and reliability of its product justifies such an investment.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) raised a number of points, none of which impressed me greatly. It is surely entirely proper for my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities to communicate with councillor Pickles, as he communicates with other councillors in his capacity as Minister. It is a curious observation to regard that as somehow improper. The hon. Gentleman had an Adjournment debate on skill centres only last week when his charges were fully answered by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment.
It is unconstructive for the hon. Gentleman to raise specific questions in the House about Members' interests as the very evidence to which he is referring is being considered by the Select Committee——

Mr. Cryer: It is published.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It may be published, but that does not mean that it is not proper for the Select Commit tee on Members' Interests to consider it rather than for the hon. Gentleman to raise that evidence in bits and pieces on the Floor of the House in a debate of this kind.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) made a number of interesting points about bovine spongiform encephalitis. He will know that a number of them were the subject of observations by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the debate which took place on Monday. My right hon. Friend has been giving evidence on that complex subject to the Select Committee on Agriculture today. I hesitate to add my limited stock of knowledge to that already offered by my right hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) made some telling comments about t he extravagance, bureaucracy and inefficiency of Bedfordshire county council. It surprises us not at all because we all know, if we are well informed, that just as Conservative-controlled councils deliver high quality at low cost, so Labour-controlled councils offer poor services for charges which take no account of the charge payer.
In the intervention immediately following, by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), there was a reference which deserves at least some acknowledgement in relation to Battersea power station. The hon. Gentleman will know that a revised planning application is currently with Wandsworth local authority. Clearly, we all want to see the future of the power station resolved as quickly as possible. The hon. Gentleman will know also that county hall was the subject of a public inquiry last autumn. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce his decision when he has considered the report.
Apart from that, the hon. Gentleman's performance—the brash way in which he said, "Down with developers, out with tourists, exit enterprise, in with compulsory purchase orders, in with bureaucracy and up with expenditure", made him a perfect exhibit A in illustration of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes) made a sweeping and entirely justified commendation of our nation's history and the importance of studying it. Perhaps he will join me in expressing the hope that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West will be consigned to the scrap heap of that history as an interesting example of Labour man.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (M r. Barnes) raised some characteristically thoughtful points about the registration of voters in relation to the registation of overseas voters. That is taking place in accordance with the legislation passed with the support of both sides of the House. When talking about the level of electoral registration, the hon. Gentleman should remember that in some years it does not keep pace with increases in the population. There are several explanations for the variation, so he should not jump to conclusions about it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) made some important points about our record on traffic accidents. Overall, Britain has a better safety record than the European Community, but that is no cause for complacency—our record can and must be improved. My hon. Friend was right to draw attention to the features in his county. It is particularly important to improve our record in relation to children and pedestrians. I was glad that he made specific reference to the case for greater use of sleeping policemen, or humps, as a means of checking speeds in areas of special sensitivity, not only in village streets but near schools.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who has a distinguished record as an advocate, did not fall short of his own standard of advocacy in making some points on behalf of the people in the Government of Israel. None of us doubts the importance of that country's case for a peaceful and secure existence, but equally we attach importance to the case of the Palestinians for respect for their human rights. As so often before, therefore, we urge the PLO to maintain its commitment to a peaceful, negotiated settlement and we look to the Israeli Government to move quickly to dialogue and to avoid more violence and bloodshed. If there is one point that I should like to draw from my hon. and learned Friend's speech, it was his reference to a territory for peace. If that is the right basis for a deal, surely it cannot be entirely sensible to increase settlements in that territory which may yet be the subject

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 22 (Periodic adjournments).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 24th May, do adjourn until Tuesday 5th June.

Mr. Latham: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to raise the matter, but surely there are some conventions of the House that should be respected. An hon. Member came into the House shortly before the replies to the debate; he made a speech about a specific point and did not bother to stay for the closing speeches, although they were beginning immediately afterwards. I think that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) should have been more courteous to the House.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I had not noticed what happened, but I deprecate the fact that bad manners are shown in the Chamber. Common courtesies in terms of our parliamentary behaviour should be upheld at all times. I thank the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) for making the point. What he said, and my comments upon it, will be recorded in the Official Report.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a convention that as soon as documents are published they are open to debate in the House. The Leader of the House implied that somehow, when the Select Committee on Members' Interests published evidence about parliamentary lobbying, it should not have been subject to debate. Surely you will agree that that is entirely wrong, but it is now on the record.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I note the hon. Gentleman's comments. As he says, the matter is now in the official record.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was not saying that such documents should not as a matter of order be subject to debate in the House. I was merely saying that to introduce them in the casual selective way that they were introduced in the Adjournment debate was unconstructive.

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is a matter for debate.

Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland)

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Before I call the Minister of State, it might be helpful if I made it clear to the House that debate on the order may cover all matters for which Northern Ireland Departments, as distinct from the Northern Ireland Office, are responsible. Of course, hon. Members will appreciate that police and security are the principal excluded subjects. 7.15 pm

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Cope): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 16th May, be approved.
This is the main appropriation order for the Northern Ireland estimates for this financial year. It authorises the expenditure of £2,496 million. That amount, when added to the £1,817 million voted on account for 1990–91 by the House on 12 March, gives a total voted cash provision for Northern Ireland Departments of £4,313 million for this financial year. There is other public expenditure not included in the vote, for example, expenditure by the Northern Ireland national insurance fund and capital expenditure by the Housing Executive, funded by borrowing from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund. Therefore, the total public expenditure for the Departments amounts this year to £5,289 million.
The estimates booklet gives full details of the sums sought and is available as usual from the Vote Office. So is the commentary on public expenditure which describes it all in a less technical way. As you correctly reminded the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, the estimates for the Northern Ireland Office and for law and order services are not covered by the order. Of course, the House has other opportunities to debate law and order. Because of your strictures, I will just emphasise that the defeat of terrorism remains the Government's first public expenditure priority in Northern Ireland. But the economic and social programmes covered by the draft order are also of great importance to the well-being of the people of Northern Ireland and make a considerable contribution to the defeat of terrorism.
As to the detail of the estimates, I will start with the Department of Agriculture. The net provision sought in the two agricultural votes amounts to about £144 million. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), will reply to the debate, so I shall not dwell on the details of those votes.
Vote 1 covers expenditure of some £35 million on those national agricultural and fisheries support measures which apply throughout the United Kingdom. In addition to certain pre-funded market support schemes under the common agricultural policy, the vote includes nearly £20 million for capital and other grants to assist structural improvements, such as grants to farmers for a range of effluent treatment, conservation and improvement works. A further £15 million is to provide support for farming in the less-favoured areas, by means of headage payments on hill cattle and sheep.
Vote 2 seeks provision of about £108 million in respect of the regional agriculture, fisheries and forestry services and support measures. Although it is a small amount, A draw the attention of the House to a new item. A token provision in these estimates of £1,000 is being made to

open an account for payments to voluntary bodies engaged in activities designed to identify the needs of, and the means of assisting, deprived rural areas of Northern Ireland. Specifically, that will enable the work of the rural action project to continue pending the outcome of recommendations from the interdepartmental committee on rural development, established by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State earlier this year. That is a new item that will grow to larger proportions in time.
The next group of votes covers the Department of Economic Development. Vote 1 covers the Industrial Development Board's support and regeneration. About £111 million is sought to enable the IDB to carry out its vital work of industrial development activities. Hon. Members will be aware of IDB's record and its number of recent successes in attracting good quality inward investments to the Province, including Fruit of the Loom, Harris Laboratories and Data Design Laboratories from the United States. Only yesterday the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), was able to announce another new project from Japan involving about 100 new jobs. We continue to attach a high priority to strengthening the Northern Ireland economy through such measures.
In vote 2 of the Department of Economic Development other economic support measures are provided, including about £143 million to provide assistance to the aircraft and shipbuilding industries. That is primarily related to the privatisation of Short Brothers and Harland and Wolff, which we have previously discussed. In addition, in vote 2 some £36 million is sought for the Local Enterprise Development Unit, Northern Ireland's small business agency. I had a lot to do with small businesses in my previous job and I am glad to say that that represents the highest-ever financial support for the agency and underlines the Government's commitment to helping small firms in Northern Ireland.
The House will be pleased to note that LEDU promoted 5,944 jobs in the last financial year, the highest in any year since it was established in 1971. That is a commendable performance. The resources sought will enable the agency to direct resources towards the development of established firms with growth potential and to encourage new enterprises.
Vote 3 of the Department of Economic Development covers expenditure by the new Training and Employment Agency—something of which I have also had experience on this side of the water. It has a budget of about £166 million, and undertakes a wide range of activities, including the youth training programme, the action for community employment scheme—the ACE scheme—the job training programme and the manpower training scheme.
The next group of estimates is for the Department of the Environment. Some £162 million is sought for vote 1, which covers roads, transport and ports. About £135 million of that is for the roads programme, the greater part. of which is required to finance the operation and maintenance of the Province's road system. It also enables new construction and improvement works to be undertaken. A list of the major construction projects is contained in the estimates booklet. Preparatory work continues on the Belfast cross-harbour road and rail


bridges project, with a view to starting construction in 1991. There is also an extended programme of structural maintenance work across the Province.
DOE vote 2 covers the important sectors of housing, for which £185 million is required, mainly to provide finance to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and to the voluntary housing movement. When the net borrowing by the Housing Executive to fund its capital programme, to which I have already referred, is taken into account, the Government's net public expenditure allocation for housing will be £243 million in 1990–91. That is supplemented by rental income and capital receipts, which will mean that gross expenditure on housing should be more than £500 million.
In the DOE's vote 4, £34 million is included for urban regeneration measures. Those are aimed primarily at improving the economic health and environment of districts that have suffered urban dereliction. As in previous years, the sums sought are expected to generate much higher overall investment through the successful public-private partnerships that currently exist in the Province.
The three biggest votes in all the estimates are for education, health and social security. For education, a total of £997 million is sought, of which the schools sector, vote 1, accounts for about 60 per cent. The total is up by more than 10 per cent. The resources will ensure that schools and teachers are properly prepared and have the necessary facilities to implement the reforms in the period up to 1992–93.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I understood the Minister to say that money would be available for the schools to meet the challenges in the reforms after 1992. One school in my constituency, Rathmore grammar school, has already had 180 grade 1 applicants and has been unable to take any of the grade 2 applicants. The trustees are seeking mobile classrooms. Will that be permissible so that they can meet the needs in that district?

Mr. Cope: I cannot answer questions about a particular school off the cuff, but a total of £83 million has been set aside for the reforms in the period up to 1992–93. Obviously, the education and library boards are involved in all such decisions, as well as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney).
Vote I also includes provision for salaries and the related costs of the 18,888 full-time equivalent teaching posts of the current year—a total of £384 million. That will maintain the planned overall pupil-teacher ratio at the present level of 18:3. There is also provision for lecturers in the institutes of further education, which will allow for about 30 additional lecturing posts from next September.
Expenditure by the five education and library boards will amount to £314 million in the current year, on the day-to-day operation of the education service in Northern Ireland. That is an increase of 9 per cent. over 1989–90, and includes special additions of £7 million for the maintenance of buildings and £3 million to improve standards of provision in the classroom. About £45 million is sought for education and library boards' capital provision.
In vote 2 of the Department of Education,£116 million is sought for expenditure on Northern Ireland's two universities, the Open university and teacher training. Vote 2 also provides for grants to the new youth council for Northern Ireland. That body has taken over the advisory role previously carried out by the youth committee, and is also responsible for assessing and paying grants to voluntary youth organisations.
The next set of votes relates to the Department of Health and Social Services. A total net provision of £940 million is sought for health and personal social services—partly in vote 1 and partly in vote 3. That is to maintain and improve the standard of the Province's health and personal social services. Much of it is for the expenditure of the health and social services boards, but £195 million is for the family practitioner services. Public expenditure on the health and personal social services programme in 1990–91 for the first time exceeds £1 billion in Northern Ireland.
The third of the very large blocks is social security. Vote 4 seeks £932 million for social security benefits—income support, housing benefit, payments into the social funds and family and non-contributory benefits. In addition, and outside the estimates, more than £800 million is spent on contributory benefits from the Northern Ireland national insurance fund.
Towards the end of the estimates there is one other small but important item to which I draw the House's attention, because it is a new vote under the Department of Finance and Personnel which I have the honour to look after and assist. I refer to vote 3, in which 1·25 million is sought for community relations purposes. When expenditure by the Department of Education is taken into account, it is planned to spend about £4 million on community relations projects in 1990–91. That includes £1·5 million to encourage cross-community contact; about £300,000 for the new community relations council, established in January to encourage and support those working to improve community relations; about £600,000 for a new programme to encourage district councils to promote improved community relations; and £1.4 million for the cultural traditions programme. The aim of improving community relations in Northern Ireland is shared by all and I hope that the House will be glad to see this new vote entering the estimates.
I have sought to draw the attention of the House only to some of the main provisions in the order; hon. Members will want to raise specific points to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will do his best to respond at the end of the debate, or, if they are very detailed, thereafter in the usual way. Meanwhile, I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Jim Marshall: As is customary on these occasions, I thank the Minister for taking us so expeditiously through the order. He seems to improve every time he goes through the ritual and I certainly look forward to the next time he moves an appropriation order.
The Minister referred to the overriding importance of eliminating terrorism in the Province—a point that does not fall within the ambit of the order—and that is certainly a shared objective. Irrespective of the expenditure required, we all agree that the money must be provided to eradicate terrorism from both communities in the Province. There is no difference between us on that topic.


It is of paramount importance; the sooner we eliminate terrorism the greater will be the impact of the votes that we are discussing on the lives of ordinary people in Northern Ireland.
As the Minister also said, these votes are of real importance to the living standards of people in the Province. It is regrettable that terrorism—inevitably—grabs the headlines so that attention is not focused on these votes, but it is they which make life tolerable and often better than it was before. It is unfortunate that they do not receive due attention from the press or the House.
It seems only a few weeks since we last discussed an appropriation order. Despite what the Minister said this time, I recall that it was a wide-ranging order admitting of debate on most aspects of economic and social life in the Province. I do not want to bore the House, but it is necessary to remind hon. Members of one or two points that I made in that last debate.
The Minister may recall that I questioned the Government's approach to industrial development and urged them to introduce a proper strategic plan for economic development. I also urged a concentration of investment in human capital through training, and drew attention to the underlying poor performance of the economy in Northern Ireland. I do not mean to detract from the efforts that the Government have made or from what success there has been, but compared with the rest of the United Kingdom and with some of our major competitors in the European Community, and despite the progress that has been made, the underlying economic performance of Northern Ireland is still relatively poor and a great deal still needs to be done.
My final point in this catalogue of reminiscence is that I recall criticising the Government's complacency on all the issues that I have just mentioned.
I found it a little strange today that the Minister did not draw attention to the recent publication by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland entitled, "Competing in the 1990s: The key to growth". It sets out much of the Government's strategy for the Province and it appears to incorporate some of the suggestions that I made in our last debate. That may be purely coincidental—or it may have been to do with the power of my arguments.
I do not want to criticise the objectives of the document, but by no stretch of the imagination could it be called a strategic plan for economic growth. I hope that I am not being over-generous when I call it both timid and short-sighted. The document gave the Government the opportunity to outline a comprehensive economic strategy for development, for which many people, including the Opposition, have been calling.
The game is given away on page 6, which states:
This paper does not set out to be a comprehensive economic development strategy".
Why not? It is what the economy of Northern Ireland is calling out for.
The whole flavour of the report is that Government intervention is essentially bad and should take place only when it is unavoidable. I notice the Secretary of State shaking his head at that, but I do not know whether he is agreeing with the flavour of my remarks or with that of his document. which gives the impression that Government intervention should be tolerated only when there is no other possible line of action. The document also clearly shows that the Government will continue to intervene in

the economy only in the same grudging spirit that they have hitherto displayed. That augurs ill, as I have said on previous occasions, for the economy of Northern Ireland.
On the positive side, I certainly welcome the document's sectoral approach to investing in the economy. The Minister may recall that that was one of the points that I emphasised in our last debate—it is the way ahead. I also welcome the document's emphasis on training and investment in skills, but some of the Government's decisions in recent weeks and months will fundamentally undermine that approach to training.
The Government correctly place greater emphasis on the importance of a highly trained and motivated work force to economic recovery in Northern Ireland. Given the circumstances in the Province, it is right to stress the role of the youth training programme. To my mind and to the minds of many people in the Province, there are three fundamental concerns about the programme as it stands.
The first is a general concern about the arrangements for its funding, the second is the impact of the programme on further education, and the third is its impact on community workshops. The Minister of State will recall that the Government gave an undertaking that the levels of block funding would be based on last year's occupancy rates. The current figures show that there is a shortfall of £338,877 on the figure for last year. Will the Minister give an undertaking that it will be made good?
The correct and proper working of the system depends on the careers service assessing each young person leaving school to see what level of premium each is likely to attract. The evidence coming to me shows clearly that the careers service is either unable or unwilling to fulfil the role given to it by Government Departments in the Province. Inevitably, more of the training organisations are having to make the assessment and those that do not do so have to take on young people at the lowest level of premium. If that situation is seen to be widespread, I should like a commitment from the Government to look at the ability of the careers service to carry out the duty the Government have imposed upon it. If the Government conclude that the service cannot carry out that duty, the responsibility and the money that goes with it should be given to the training schemes.
The Government will be aware that private companies setting up to provide training are one of the growth areas in the Province. I do not criticise that, but I should like to see the private companies made subject to the same scrutiny that the Department of Economic Development applies to community workshops. If a great deal of training is carried out by private companies, those companies must be subject to Government scrutiny. Perhaps the Minister will assure us that the Department of Economic Development will be given the power to do that.
Under the old system, colleges of further education provided free training for people on youth training schemes. That is to be changed, and any training that is received in further education colleges will have to be paid for. The Government have given an assurance that that will not have a great effect upon people employed in colleges of further education, and I accept such an assurance at face value. However, there is evidence that the education and library boards are already trawling for 165 voluntary redundancies. That may be incidental, but 11 think that it is a direct consequence of the imposition of the new training regime.
Such redundancies may be just the tip of the iceberg. If the managers of the training schemes become reluctant to buy expertise from the colleges of further education and decide to provide more training in-house, it will have a knock-on effect on employment in colleges of further education. I am not necessarily a defender of teachers or lecturers in colleges of further education or even in higher education establishments, even though I used to teach in a polytechnic.
Jobs are important, but perhaps even more important is the standard of training. If the in-house training is of a substantially lower standard than that which is available in the colleges of further education, it will affect the expertise that is imparted to young people and will undermine the regime for new training. I urge the Government to keep that matter under review.
The Government will know that when the changes relating to community workshops were first discussed they produced anger and dismay among those who work there. The people in the workshops launched a campaign and the Government were prepared to make some concessions. I have a letter dated 1 February 1990 from the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham). Speaking about modifications, the Minister said:
There is three months advance funding payable on 2 April, guaranteed funding for one year amounting to 90 per cent. of each workshop's current overhead budget, and a substantial increase in premium levels 1 and 2. It is my intention that in the autumn"—
I think the Minister meant this autumn—
my Department in co-operation with the Association of Community Workshops will organise a conference at which the community workshops network can give their views on the practicalities of the new arrangements.
The practicalities of the new scheme are already becoming abundantly clear. The number of workshops has fallen from 44 to 41 and those that have survived are in a parlous state. In many cases there is a severe shortage of money and that has forced an estimated 30 per cent. redundancy rate among the staff of community workshops. The workshops say that they claimed for the extra premium at the end of April on the basis of their April occupancy levels. They say that, despite assurances that the matter is being looked at by officials in the relevant Department, no additional payment has yet been made. I urge the Government to look into that and to do so urgently in view of the severe financial difficulties facing many workshops.
The Minister's letter referred to a meeting that was to be arranged this autumn. I understand that the meeting had been arranged for October but that the workshops have been informed that that date is no longer available to the Minister. I am not quite sure what that means, but it has started alarm bells ringing in the minds of those involved in community workshops. I should like assurances that it does not show any lack of determination on the part of the Minister to meet the people and to make progress in solving their problems and that, if the meeting has been postponed, that is purely because of a conflict of diary entries. I also hope that the Minister will carry out as soon as possible his promise—his obligation—to meet the representatives of the community workshops.
There is a feeling, rightly or wrongly, among those who work in community workshops that the Government want

to see a reduction in their number, and are prepared to sit back and see community workshops go down one by one. I should like to hear the Minister's reply to that suggestion, and I should like him to reaffirm the Government's determination to support, and their commitment to, community workshop projects.
The estimates show an increase of 8·5 per cent. on the 1989–90 total gross provision for health. I know that Ministers delight in quoting that figure and, in their delight, imply that it will lead to great improvements in the Health Service in the Province. Our view, like that of most professionals in Northern Ireland, is that this increase is nowhere near big enough to meet existing unmet demand. The reality of the Health Service in Northern Ireland is more ward closures and longer waiting lists. At the Belfast City hospital, the waiting list is 112 per cent. higher than it was last year, and at the Ulster hospital it is 50 per cent. higher than it was last year.
In addition, the determination to proceed with rapid privatisation of certain aspects of the Health Service is proving an unmitigated disaster leading in many cases to dirty kitchens and unwashed linen. There has also been a massive increase in the number of unplanned hospital discharges because of the pressure on beds. Apart from the distress this causes, it is inefficient because these patients inevitably have to be readmitted. Rather than taking undue pleasure in the 8·5 per cent. increase in the health vote this year, the Government should be saying that, while this is a step in the right direction, greater financial resources will be provided, to make a real impact on health provision in the Province.
I have spent some time talking about the economy of Northern Ireland and the need for further action to increase economic growth. One growth area in the economy of Northern Ireland is in the consultancy studies being carried out into energy requirements and the future of the energy industry in the Province. In 1989–90, £391,000 was spent on the consultancy fees for such studies, but next year that will increase to £1,301,000—an increase of two and a half times. There we have an example of a growth industry. We must ask ourselves what kind of information and what kind of answers these studies will produce. I hope—I gather that this is likely to be a fruitless hope—that these studies will emphasise that the main problems in energy are generation and distribution rather than privatisation.
I understand that this year Northern Ireland Electricity is likely to make a profit of £50 million. I hope that that will be invested in improving the generation and distribution of energy rather than used to fatten up the cow for privatisation in the next 18 months or two years. There is an urgent need for the replacement of old switchgear, particularly in Belfast. I recognise that it cannot be done overnight and that even that £50 million will not be sufficient to pay for the replacement scheme. However, Ministers should be emphasising to the chairman and the members of the board, and the managing director, that, whereas in the Province switchgear is replaced in a cycle of 50 to 60 years, in the rest of the United Kingdom it is replaced in a cycle of 20 or 30 years. We should be encouraging a change to the shorter cycle.
We know that the capacity generated by the power stations in Belfast and Derry will cease in the next 10 years. This was a subject that came up at the last Northern


Ireland questions. To replace that capacity, the Government have decided to go for Kilroot 2 and the interconnector between the Province and Scotland.
I hope that Ministers will give us more information about this. At the last Northern Ireland questions, the Under-Secretary gave me an assurance on this, but I repeat the appeal that I made to him: will the Government publish their analysis of the energy requirements for the Province so that an informed discussion can take place before final decisions are taken? The Opposition are not convinced that the best configuration for the supply of electricity for the Province is the completion of Kilroot 2—although we support completion of that facility—and the interconnector between the Province and Scotland.
My last point is on one of my old hobby horses—lignite, the one indigenous pure fuel resource in the Province. It is regrettable that it is not likely to be exploited in the foreseeable future. I would find it regrettable if the exploitation of lignite was sacrificed on the altar of short-term expediency.
I understand that a consortium in Northern Ireland is seeking to obtain private capital to finance a lignite-burning station. Has the consortium approached Government Departments in the Province? If approaches have been made, what has been the response of Ministers? If it is considered feasible to build a lignite-burning power station in the near future, it would be regrettable if the project were to be abandoned purely because of the decision to which the Government may have come over Kilroot 2 and the interconnector between the Province and the United Kingdom.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman referred to sacrificing the exploitation of lignite on the altar of short-term expediency. Does he agree that it would be wrong if the environment of Northern Ireland were sacrified for a quick profit for the producers of power through the burning of lignite, especially when we consider the devastation of parts of eastern Europe?

Mr. Marshall: Of course. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is why I asked for the publication of the information that is in the Government's possession. The hon. Gentleman will know that one of the problems with coal-burning power stations is sulphur emissions. I want to know if the possible expenditure of £200 million has been included in the figures that are available to the Government. That would be the sum required to provide scrubbers for the elimination of sufficient sulphur from existing power stations in the Province. Until all the information, including all the figures, is available, none of us will be able to make any definitive statements or reach any conclusions on the methods used to generate electricity in the Province.
I am sorry to have detained the House for so long. My speech would have been two minutes shorter had it not been for an intervention. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and Northern Ireland Ministers will be pleased to know that, as is customary on these occasions, it is not our intention to divide the House on this latest anniversary of the appropriation order debate.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I shall keep my remarks reasonably short, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am glad to say that there are more of my hon. Friends who wish to

contribute to the debate this evening than on a previous occasion. In other words, I am pleased to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).
On 14 October 1971, the Payments of Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) became law in Northern Ireland. It was a response to the rent and rate strike and a special procedure to circumvent the strike. It enabled deductions to be made from benefit payments for debt, even without the debtor's permission. During the consideration of the measure before it became an Act it was clearly stated that the sooner the rent and rate strike ended, the sooner the Act would lapse. That was in 1971, and it is now 1990. However, the emergency measure is still in existence. Even today, tenants who have their houses disrupted by repairs or improvements are refused redecoration grants because they are in rent arrears. In other words, workmen disrupt an entire house and the tenant is unable to redecorate because the Northern Ireland Housing Executive holds on to the money that would have been made available in the form of a redecoration grant because of the tenant's arrears.
Electricity consumers who have cleared their arrears still have deductions made from their benefit payments because the accounts department, or the Housing Executive, fails to cancel the original order at the Department of Social Security. Today, almost 20 years after the Act took its place on the statute book, direct deductions are still being made from wages and benefit payments. The Housing Executive continues to withhold redecoration grants. Even court claims are withheld so that ordinary civil debt can be cleared. No attempt is made to investigate the needs or circumstances of those concerned. The Act makes no provision for the examination of personal financial circumstances. Nor does. it provide a formal right of appeal against the level of deductions from income or benefit.
I repeat that in May 1990, almost 20 years on, the Act remains in force, even though the emergency which prompted its enactment has long since passed. Anyone who reads the debates on the measure before its enactment will agree that it was never intended to be used for ordinary civil debt. The Secretary of State should repeal the Act as soon as possible and restore a little dignity to the lives of those who are forced through circumstances to get into unwanted debt.
I have been encouraged lately by the efforts being made by the Department of the Environment to improve living conditions and the general condition of the countryside in Northern Ireland. There is a seemingly small but increasingly frustrating problem of untended grassed areas. Unfortunately, the planners or designers of estates require builders, especially private builders, to leave a certain space for grassed areas, or for trees, bushes and shrubs. These areas become a wilderness because no one seems to be responsible for them. Those who pay £40,000 or £60,000 for their homes find that outside their door there is an area which ultimately becomes a dump because no one will take responsibility. The local council will say that it is not its responsibility and that it is not required to look after those pieces of ground. The Department of the Environment seems to have no responsibility because these areas are left by private builders. The planning department will say that it required the builder to leave the open space within the estate, but that it is not responsible for keeping


it in good order. Anyone who becomes involved in such an issue finds himself going round the various authorities in a circle.
With our interest in the environment, surely some method could be devised whereby the local council is given sufficient funds to keep grassed areas in good order. I believe that the Minister responsible for these matters should give careful attention to such a scheme. Public representatives are frustrated because they seem powerless and unable to get anything done. Those who live on the estates are similarly frustrated.
A problem of the past, which seemed to disappear, is now rearing its head again for various reasons. It arises when a developer does not make up the road to the required standard to be taken over by the Department of the Environment. People may be living in homes for three years with an artificial lake outside the door where there is supposed to be a road. When the Department is approached it says that it is very concerned and has a bond which it will use. Unfortunately, bringing the bond into operation seems to be such an unwieldy process and seems to take so long that everyone gets frustrated. I understand that if the builder comes along after being threatened with the bond and puts in two or three kerb stones, the Department will not use the bond. That is a terrible loophole. Will the Minister get the Department to study the problem and tighten up the rules so the object of the exercise, the bond, can be a means of taking action quickly if the builder does not fulfil his obligations?
Another problem, which may seem minor in this honourable place, is the Housing Executive's reaction to broken windows. In certain areas recently windows have been broken by vandals—or perhaps I should use the term "thugs". I know of homes in which all the windows have been broken by thugs, for whatever reason. If tenants go along to the Housing Executive and say that they have had all their windows broken by a crowd of people who they do not know, the Housing Executive will say that it is nothing to do with the Housing Executive because of the agreement with the tenant which means that the tenant has to put in new windows. If the tenant goes to the police, they will say that it is a matter for the Housing Executive—obviously, the police cannot replace broken windows. Such vandalism is bad and the Housing Executive or the Department of the Environment should consider whether they can help the people affected and perhaps transfer them to other areas.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Is my hon. Friend aware that tenants on some estates have had their homes repeatedly damaged month after month? Many are pensioners and have been transferred to new accommodation only to go through the same experience again, and they cannot afford to replace windows. The problem must be addressed as a matter of urgency by the Housing Executive and the Minister must approve changes to meet their needs.

Mr. Forsythe: I completely agree with my hon. Friend as this is a serious problem in some areas. On rare occasions, people are helped. It is bad enough having all the windows broken and being threatened without having

the further problem of not being able to find the money to put in new windows or to have them boarded up. The problem must be considered as quickly as possible.
Perhaps the Minister is as disappointed as I am at the delay in the Slaght crossing inquiry. I am well aware of the legalities of the situation and that there may be good reasons why the inquiry has not got off the ground as soon as we should have liked—indeed, I know there are good reasons. However, there was an accident at the crossing and there are a number of similar crossings in Northern Ireland with a history of accidents. Unfortunately, the general public are still unaware of what happened. I have met the inspector of the inquiry—a sensible and responsible person who takes a serious view of the matter and has made great efforts to do whatever is necessary—but we still do not know what happened. People are very anxious about the matter and many people now take much greater care at such crossings.
Video cameras were installed at three open crossings in the Province. I understand that the cameras were installed to monitor the performance of, or conduct at, the crossings. I have two questions for the Minister. First, were the cameras installed because of fears about what was happening at those or at other crossings? Secondly, is there a video recording from each of those cameras which could be used to show what happened, or are the cameras monitored visually every day, without a recording being taken? I hope that the Minister will give an explanation.
I have asked the Department whether any fully automatic or half-automatic barriers had been changed to open crossings in the past few years. I understand from answers given to me that no crossing had been changed in such a way, but I understand from other information—albeit not official—that two crossings were changed from either full or half-automatic barriers to open crossings. Will the Minister tell me officially in the House whether that is so?
I am pleased at the great improvement in the international airport in Belfast. The airport is of a high standard and we look forward to the standard being higher, but I have one niggle of concern—that the airport is being fattened up, to use the expression used earlier by the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), for privatisation. I am interested to know who will be involved in such a privatisation. We have a say about it in this House, but if the airport is privatised we may not be able to influence the running of the airport in quite the same way.
As for the Department of Finance and Personnel—vote 1, All—we read on page 147, dealing with the international fund, that
This subhead covers the administrative costs of the Fund.
They amount to £343,000. The running costs come to £248,000. Grant in aid amounts to £93,000. I ask the Minister to spell out what it costs the United Kingdom taxpayer to administer the international fund.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) about community workshops. I am fortunate to have a splendid community workshop at Bangor in my constituency. The staff are enthusiastic. When I visited it I was greatly impressed by those who had enrolled. My experience of that community workshop leads me to


believe that encouragement and help must be given to similar workshops. I should deprecate any attempt by the Government to reduce the number of community workshops in Northern Ireland.
I echo what was said by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) about Belfast airport. The travelling public are treated disgracefully, particularly by British Airways. It treats its passengers like cattle at the London end. That is unacceptable. It is high time that proper services were provided at Heathrow so that passengers could walk straight on to aircraft. There should be no more excuses when delays occur because there are no back-up aircraft.
I, too, welcome the new Member of Parliament for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). I remember the last occasion when I had a long talk with Harold McCusker, his predecessor. On that occasion he came to have dinner with me in my home. I shall always remember his great courage and spirit, despite his illness. If the new Member of Parliament for Upper Bann carries on the tradition that was followed by Harold McCusker in this House, he will do well by his constituents.
The first speech that I made in the Chamber was a passionate plea on behalf of the elderly. I believed then, as I believe now, that our senior citizens, after long years of work either in the home or in factories, shops or offices, have earned the right to dignity and comfort at the end of their lives. What I said then is true today: those who have reached retirement age ask for certain basic rights, such as an adequate pension. I made that point when I last spoke in an appropriation order debate. National resources should be provided so that people who can no longer cope in their own homes can be cared for properly.
Most elderly people prefer to stay in their own homes. That is often possible only if they are provided with domiciliary help. If that is impossible, they have to seek sanctuary in residential or nursing homes, which should be supervised and inspected regularly if we are to ensure that the elderly are treated properly and with compassion.
Many years ago I drew attention in an Adjournment debate to the plight of those who look after an elderly or sick father or mother. It is usually the daughter who forfeits the prospect of marriage to devote herself completely to the constant daily care of a parent. At that time such total dedication went unrecognised and unrewarded by the state, even though vast sums of public money were saved because those elderly people did not have to be taken into care.
A recent survey published by Crossroads, a worthy organisation that deserves the respect of the community, emphasised that half the 6 million people in the United Kingdom who look after elderly relatives at home are at breaking point. It confirms that many carers who have given up work to look after frail parents feel like prisoners in their own homes. It is a physically demanding and stressful task that in many cases isolates the carers from the outside world. Those people—who, as I have said, are usually daughters—can lose contact with friends and acquaintances and the organisations to which they formerly belonged. Because of their total commitment to their elderly father or mother, they become thoroughly demoralised and worn out. What undermines their great spirit, which we all recognise, is the lack of recognition of their dedication and the Government's failure to provide adequate support for them.
Residential care for the elderly in the United Kingdom costs about £1 billion annually—a considerable sum of money. Such a staggering sum makes it imperative to encourage, wherever possible, the care of the elderly in their own homes. However, the carers, many of whom give up their jobs and marriage prospects, must be paid properly for looking after an elderly father or mother, or a sick or handicapped relative.
I refer also to the treatment of pensioners. Since the changes to the social security regulations, pensioners who formerly were in receipt of supplementary benefit now find that, because of the slight increase in their pension, they no longer qualify for rent or rate rebates. That has put an additional burden on many pensioners.
I have raised with the appropriate authorities the fact that many pensioners have to pay the full television licence fee. Pensioners who live in warden-controlled accommodation benefit from paying only a nominal television licence fee, whereas pensioners who do not live in such accommodation have to pay the full fee. That anomaly has been made worse. Pensioners who move into accommodation where residents benefit from the concession are forced to pay the full licence fee. It is wrong that we should treat our senior citizens in that way. Pensioners living alone or with another pensioner should have the benefit of free television. It is their window on to the world; it provides them with entertainment and, above all, it gives them companionship. It is high time that the Government recognised that justice should be done and that pensioners should be allowed to watch television without having to pay a single penny.
I am concerned about the proposed privatisation of electricity. I have already warned the Government to keep their hands off our electricity—the electricity of the people of Northern Ireland. It would be wrong to put it into private hands as that would create a monopoly. Northern Ireland is not the same as the rest of the United Kingdom where there are several electricity suppliers. Here in England there is a supply of natural gas which has been denied to the people of Northern Ireland. Even now, perhaps with the prompting of the Common Market, the Government should provide a gas pipeline to the island of Ireland. Perhaps such a pipeline should run from the Morecambe fields to the territory of Northern Ireland and gas could then be supplied to the Irish Republic.
It would be completely wrong to sell Northern Ireland's electricity supply industry as Northern Ireland already suffers from expensive coal. The price has recently been increased by 50p a bag, or £10 a tonne, which represents an unacceptable increase compared with the price charged in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is high time that we had an investigation into the cost of living in Northern Ireland which is higher than it is in most parts of Britain.
The Government are very strong on pollution. In the past year or two they have become very green and have dedicated themselves to improving the environment. But it is no use just talking about improving the environment; we want action. Quite apart from places such as Antarctica where international action is needed to turn the territory into a world park and save it from speculators and polluters, the Government need to ensure that raw sewage is not dumped into Belfast lough and is not dumped off the coast of North Down. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) would agree that the sewage from Belfast should not be dumped into the sea and washed up on to the coast by the tides or the


winds. It pollutes the entire coastline of County Down. It certainly creates great resentment among those who live in Bangor, Ballyholme and Orlock who see signs of sewage and other debris along the coastline. We need a commitment from the Government that they will build a sewage works, no matter how costly it may be, so that raw sewage is no longer thrown into the sea.
Finally, to refer to a matter in Holywood—not Hollywood in California but Holywood, County Down in my constituency. That is the development at Kinnegar, an estate on the coast at Holywood. I appeal to the Minister and to the House for support on behalf of the families who live at Kinnegar. They oppose, as I do, the use of the old gas works site for light industrial or office development. They have waged their campaign of opposition for well over a year and I have been closely identified with it from the start. I wrote to the Department of the Environment on a number of occasions urging that the site should be preserved and retained as a recreational area for the people and children of Kinnegar.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have not had the good fortune to visit Holywood. It is a lovely, ancient place. I see the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood), nodding in assent. I have the impression that he has travelled further afield than Kinnegar and may have visited County Armagh recently. If he comes to Holywood, he will find it and the rest of my constituency of North Down a pleasant place with a lovely environment and marvellous people, most of whom—perhaps I should not say most, but a sufficient number—vote for me. Pray God that in the next general election, despite the intervention of a Conservative candidate, those people will still vote for me, knowing the years of service that I have given my constituency of North Down. That was the start of my election campaign.
Holywood lacks all the recreational facilities that are to be found in other large towns and cities in Northern Ireland and that is unfair. Holywood has been passed by and that is why the old Kinnegar gas works site should be preserved. But sadly, despite all the objections by residents and all the protests that I have made, the site was sold and planning permission has been granted.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman by saying that the Conservative mayor of North Down came to see me yesterday about that very issue, drawing attention to the letter that he received from the hon. Gentleman. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will look most carefully at his point about Kinnegar.

Mr. Kilfedder: I am puzzled by what the Minister said because I have not written to the Conservative candidate. I have certainly written to one of the Environment Ministers—I cannot recall which, so I shall opt for the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), who wears glasses and has a kindly face. I have written to Ministers about Kinnegar, and if I wrote to the Minister with the kindly face I hope that I shall get a kindly response.
Despite all their protests and complaints, the people of Kinnegar have been totally frustrated. Their opposition has been ignored and bureaucracy seeks to treat them with impunity. I warn the Department of the Environment that

those worthy people have not given up and on their behalf I appeal to both Ministers to reward their endeavours and restore faith in the democratic process by intervening in this issue.
I pointed out in the past that the ordinary citizen is at a grave disadvantage in attempting to oppose a planning application. If an application for planning permission is refused, the person making the application has the right of appeal to the planning appeals commission and can employ a high-powered barrister or Queen's counsel to push his case. Once a planning application is granted, an objector has no such right. It does not matter how many objectors there are, because they have no such right. I have urged the Government to amend the law and to provide objectors with a right of appeal. The case of Kinnegar confirms the need for such a right if justice is to be done.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The hon. Gentleman will be aware, from his previous life as Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, of a proposal made by the environment committee which was accepted by the Department. It changed the planning regulations to the extent that the Department was willing, provided that two thirds of a council opposed a planning application, to hold an article 22 inquiry. The difficulty has often been that the Department has held on to applications until the two months within which an article 22 inquiry must be called have elapsed. A change in the legislation extending that period would help councils to ensure equality between objectors and applicants.

Mr. Kilfedder: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That shows the worth of the Northern Ireland Assembly and of the various statutory committees, including the environment committee, of which the hon. Gentleman was the distinguished chairman. It is right to praise those who deserve it, because there are a number in this House who deserve no praise.
The developers at Kinnegar have obtained permission to build seven office units of approximately 5,000 square feet per unit with car parking for 125 cars. They estimate that 300 people will be employed in the proposed units. It is perfectly clear that such a development will substantially increase traffic and service and delivery vehicles. There is a real and grave problem: the entrance to the Kinnegar estate is a small road, and even without that development it is often blocked by security forces' vehicles or ordnance vehicles from the Army barracks at the end of the Kinnegar estate. In addition to the military vehicles, which block traffic, sewage tankers travel daily through the estate.
A local public house—I know that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) does not approve of public houses—has obtained planning permission for an extension, which will generate more business, people and cars. I pity the people who will live in that area, with all that development and traffic and danger to their children. The area is already congested. Surely it is planning madness to allow that office or light industrial development to proceed. What about the rights of the ordinary people who live in the area, in particular the young people, for whom a recreational area would be of inestimable benefit?

Mr. David Trimble: I understand that it is customary for me to begin by paying tribute to the previous Member for Upper Bann, which I do gladly. Mr. Harold McCusker can be aptly summed up as a man of the people. He worked extremely hard for the people of Upper Bann and cared deeply for their welfare. I know from canvassing in the recent by-election that he was held in high regard and with deep affection by the people of Upper Bann. Harold, characteristically, was a fighter. He fought for those people and he fought in personal terms. His illness would not have been so prolonged if he had not fought so strongly against it. As many hon. Members know, Harold's surname literally means "a son of Ulster", and he was a son of Ulster. He was conscious of the soil from which he sprang and the traditions of the area and its people.
The Upper Bann area is proud of its Unionist heritage, and many elements within the area express that heritage. I had some pleasure in reading a recent publication by the Public Record Office, edited by David Miller. Hon. Members will be familiar with his earlier work, which was extremely enlightening, on Unionism and loyalism. That publication included a copy of the account by Colonel Blacker of the formation of the Orange Order, of which I am proud to be a member. We find within it not only the Armagh area—sometimes the Armagh people, it being the County of the Diamond, forget that other counties contributed—but particularly in the west Down area. I am thinking particularly of the Bleary boys who contributed to that and to the successful defeat of the 1938 rebellion shortly afterwards.
The Unionist heritage of the north Armagh area is in some ways epitomised by the statute of Colonel Saunderson, which stands in the centre of Armagh. I shall refer again to Colonel Saunderson in a way that is particularly apposite to other matters.
Upper Bann is significant not only for its Orange heritage but for the way in which its character was formed largely through the plantation processes of the 17th and early 18th centuries. The major towns in the area are plantation towns. We see that from the contribution of the Brownlows to the creation of Lurgan and of the Warings to Waringstown and other towns in the area.
That plantation had a significant heritage in other repects, because directly from it sprang the Ulster custom, which after the Ulster land war of the 1770s provided a basis from which the industrial revolution was able to occur. The industrial revolution in Ulster, which was centred on the Lagan valley, was an indigenous growth. Ministers may be interested in this, because it owed nothing to Government contribution or significant landlord patronage. It was indigenous and arose out of the customary rights that the tenants had won for themselves. We find the traces of one of the first major industrial developments in the area—the textile industry—through the middle Bann valley, running from Gilford down to the town of Banbridge, which lies in the centre of the constituency.
During the recent by-election in Upper Bann, attention focused on the intervention of what are called national parties. I want to reflect on that for a moment. I mentioned Colonel Saunderson, whose statue stands in the centre of Portadown. The inscription refers to him as the leader of Ulster's Unionists in the House for more than 20 years. As

hon. Members will know, he first sat in the House as a Liberal, representing the constituency of County Cavan, and in the 1880s was returned for North Armagh, including Portadown, as a Conservative. Of course, he is noted as the leader of the Ulster Unionists.
The term "national parties" which has been bandied about in recent times is misleading. It was misleading for some people who call themselves Conservatives to intervene in that election and call themselves the national parties. They claimed that their arrival was something new. Of course it was not new. Nor are they right to refer to themselves as solely national parties as distinct from provincial parties. We in the Ulster Unionist party are the British national party in Ulster. We were formed historically by an alliance between Ulster Liberals and Ulster Conservatives, with Ulster Labour representatives too, to combat Irish nationalists. We are the national British parties in Ulster. In that context, one must put a large question mark against the aims and motives of a group calling itself Conservative which contested the election with, it seemed to us, the object of dividing and diminishing the Unionist voice and, by so doing, diminishing the voice of the British people of Ulster.
Since my arrival in the House, several hon. Members have expressed to me their regret at the decision of the Conservative party to contest the Upper Bann election. I did not regret it during the election. While canvassing, I repeatedly told the electors that the election was an opportunity for them to vote against the policies of the Government. The results show that the electorate of Upper Bann seized that opportunity with both hands. Hon. Members will not need to be reminded that the candidate representing the policies of the Government scored a total of 2·9 per cent.—less than 3 per cent.—of the valid votes cast in the election. That is a clear rejection of the policies of the present Administration. That demonstrates—indeed, it confirms, because we had demonstrated it on many previous occasions—that the policies pursued by the Northern Ireland Office have no mandate from the people of Ulster. That is significant.
People cannot say that a majority elsewhere in the United Kingdom in favour of the Government's policies legitimises those policies. A clear distinction can be drawn between Northern Ireland and, say, Scotland. In Scotland, where again the Government have no mandate for their policies, they can say that their policies are applied on a Great Britain basis and that they have a majority in Great Britain. However, the policies pursued in Northern Ireland are applied, not on a United Kingdom basis but specifically to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is treated differently from the rest of the United Kingdom and its constitutional status in the kingdom is diminished.
A mandate for the Government's policies can be obtained only from the people of Ulster. Clearly that mandate does not exist. In the light of that, the only honourable course for the Government is to reconsider their policies and accept the offers made by my colleague to extricate them from the position in which they have put themselves. They should adopt policies that reinforce the position of the kingdom of Ulster within the kingdom.
At least the Conservative party came to seek a mandate in Upper Bann, even though that mandate was refused. If listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall). I find his detailed interest in matters relating to Northern Ireland interesting. I agreed with several of the points that he made. Surely he


must find it a little strange to take such a detailed interest in Northern Ireland matters and discuss them at length in the House when he belongs to a party that not only does not contest elections in Northern Ireland but refuses people in Northern Ireland the right or opportunity to join it. A member of a party which deliberately boycotts the people of Northern Ireland must surely find it inconsistent to take such a detailed interest in Northern Ireland.
Tonight we are discussing the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1990. The measure is dealt with in the form of an Order in Council. Order in Council procedures are less than satisfactory. Indeed, that is an understatement. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) referred a few moments ago to defects in the planning legislation on article 22 inquiries. As hon. Members will know, a planning and building regulations order has been tabled and is shortly to be debated. If that was legislation dealt with in the normal way, the hon. Member for Belfast, East could table an amendment to provide a remedy for the defects to which he referred. Of course, he cannot do so. That is not right. The procedures should not operate in the way that they do. Significant changes are needed.
I support the comments made by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) on the Payments for Debt (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971. Order in Council procedure is objectionable partly because it is described as temporary. It is a temporary procedure stemming currently from the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974 and originally from the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972. One wonders what the meaning of the word "temporary" is in that context.
That is even more appropriate in the context of the point raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, South. He dealt with a temporary measure introduced in 1971, which is still operating. Not only is the measure objectionable because it was a temporary measure which lasted 19 years, but the provisions made for deduction of benefits under the Act were made as the result of administrative action.
I should have thought that hon. Members who are interested in the rights of persons subject to the law of the United Kingdom would want people's property rights determined in the courts or through some form of judicial procedure, rather than civil service actions. Civil servants may decide to withhold benefits in order to pay debts owed to other persons. That is particularly strange when, through the Enforcement of Judgments Office and its provisions for attachment of earnings and other assets, procedures have to be followed and some independent judgment is placed between the debtor and the creditor by the operations of the enforcement officers.
Surely, at least on those grounds, something should be done. Even if it is still felt necessary to make deductions from people entitled to claim benefit, surely something should be done to enable people to make representations before a third party. It would be appropriate to provide something analogous to the procedure for enforcement judgments.
My first point about the order concerns planning policy in the Craigavon district. That area is unique in Northern Ireland as the only area that does not have in force a development plan or area plan. The original, non-statutory plan, which is now some 20 years old, is not

relevant, because the position has changed drastically in the past 20 years, with the failure of the new city project contained within it. In that area, we are operating with the detritus of the new city project.
While canvassing during the election campaign, I was struck by the desolation of the estates in the central Craigavon or Brownlow area. I hope that some thought has been given to planning policies that could help to regenerate that area. I was also struck by the way in which many areas of the town of Lurgan have been badly blighted because of road proposals which, I am told, have since been abandoned. Again, I hope that some serious planning policies will be evolved to regenerate those areas.
I was also struck by one of the consequences of the 1960s housing policies which I hope will not be repeated. I refer to the not very well built medium and high-rise flat developments. Nearly all the developments that I saw were semi-derelict and unoccupied. They were eyesores and worse—especially in the Portadown district, where properties that were originally constructed by the local Housing Executive have been bought by the tenants under the right-to-buy procedures, which the Government encouraged.
The owners have found that, to some extent, their properties have been devalued by the derelict medium-rise flat developments just across the road. I hope that some urgent action will be taken on that. I was told by the occupiers—the purchasers—that they had been told by the executive that they would have to wait two or three years simply for a decision on the flat developments, let alone for any action to be taken.
My second point about the appropriation order relates to the community relations cultural traditions programmes. As the Minister said, the programmes are being expanded considerably. That is a good thing, and I very much welcome the existence of those programmes. However, I should like an assurance that they will be genuinely representative and even-handed. I must confess to being uncertain about the Northern Ireland Community Relations Council. Technically, it is not a Government body, although in the first instance all its members have been appointed by the Government. It has been given a budget of £300,000. We must ask, how was the body formed? How representative of the community are the people who serve on it and how balanced is that representation? It seems that that representation does not rise above the level of tokenism as far as the majority tradition in Ulster is concerned. Many of the people who serve on it cannot be regarded as truly representative.
Finally, I refer to an item of expenditure relating to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I note that there is a provision for £274,000 to be spent—over £200,000 of which will be spent on maintaining a cadre to provide the basis for an Assembly, should one be called in the future. I welcome that expenditure because there is a great need for representative institutions in Ulster. Hon. Members will know that there is a virtual absence of representative institutions and that what are called "local authorities" are not really what are normally understood by that term. They rarely get above the level of English parish councils. There is a huge gap between them and this House. We need representative institutions.
Although I welcome that expenditure on the Northern Ireland Assembly, I do not want my comments to be taken as implying my approval of the proposals in the Prior Act—the Northern Ireland Act 1982. I am not sure that those


proposals ever were workable. If we ever have an Assembly—or devolution on any significant scale in the future—I hope that it will be much more substantial than that of the Northern Ireland Assembly, if it is to be regarded as worthwhile devolution as distinct from what is essentially local government restructuring, which is another matter.
Devolution is said to be the Government's policy. I find it curious that a Government with that policy have not made any proposals that would advance that policy. That is to be contrasted with the experience or the actions of the Ulster Unionist party because it is now almost two and a half years since the Ulster Unionist party made detailed proposals for developments in Northern Ireland to the previous Secretary of State, to which there has not yet been any response. The Government do not make any proposals of their own. Their attitude is passive. If we were to have discussions on the proposals, I suspect that the Government would not advance any proposals of their own, but would simply adopt the role of picking holes in the proposals of ourselves and others.
I wonder why that should be the case. I suspect that, despite its protestations to the contrary, the Northern Ireland Office actually prefers the present position. I suspect that it does not really want devolution, but prefers to sustain the present direct rule. Under that system, it is effectively insulated from any form of democratic control. Ministers can speak for themselves, but civil servants in the Northern Ireland Office give the impression that they are not really interested in devolution, and that they enjoy the freedom from accountability that direct rule gives them. That is another reason for ending direct rule at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: Let me take this opportunity to welcome the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) to the House. I welcome him not only as a Conservative and Unionist, but as a Roman Catholic. I had the opportunity of joining him for lunch today, and found him a charming and clubbable individual—in the nicest sense of the word—and I wish him every success in his political career.
The hon. Gentleman bears a grave and onerous burden: he follows Harold McCusker, who was held in great affection by his constituents and in the House. Harold McCusker spoke for his people with courage, honesty and decency, from his heart. The courage that he showed when fighting illness was the same courage as he showed in fighting the men of terror and violence. I remember hearing him say on many occasions in the House that he had carried more coffins of friends and relatives than any other hon. Member. That is something I know that the new hon. Member for Upper Bann will never and should never forget.
The hon. Gentleman raised a minor note of controversy. There is a convention that a new Member should not have too much of a go at his parliamentary opponents in a maiden speech. From my mere seven years' experience in the House, I can say that although he was heard in silence—as is the convention—he may not be next time. It is not always wise to attack one's parliamentary opponents, especially on both sides of the House—that is asking for trouble.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that this is a Parliament of the United Kingdom. If he really wants—I trust that he does—to represent the views of the people of Upper Bann, he will not come here only to debate matters relating to Upper Bann and Northern Ireland, but will participate in and legislate on United Kingdom matters. If anything can bring the Province to a degree of normality within the United Kingdom, it is the prospect of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues doing just that.
I know that this is not a debate about the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and I shall not be sidetracked on to that, but one can only be encouraged by the constructive and helpful comments on television this morning by the leaders of the Democratic Unionist party and the Ulster Unionist party. I know that there have been many false dawns and graveyards of expectation, but for the first time for ages there appeared to be a united voice, and a flexibility on the part of Government and the major Ulster parties. That is to be welcomed, and the House will wish them luck.
The major recruiting ground of the IRA must be unemployment, and I pay tribute to Ministers in their crusade against it. The seasonally adjusted figure for unemployment in the Province in March 1990 was 98,400: that represented a decrease of 10,600 compared with March 1989, and a decrease of 26,900 compared with the peak of 125,300 in October 1986. In March 1990 seasonally adjusted unemployment stood at its lowest level for more than seven years, since September 1982. That is a major step forward.
There is also good news for the young unemployed because, since March 1989, unemployment among 18 to 24-year-olds has decreased by 5,053. The number of persons unemployed for more than one year, the long-term unemployed, has decreased by 7,447. The number of employees increased by 8,390 between December 1987 and December 1989. That is a key figure. Credit must be given to my hon. Friend the Minister for the work that he has done on this front.
The investment now coming into the Province is another key factor. Earlier my right hon. Friend the Minister of State mentioned some recent IDB successes which reflect the continuing progress of inward investment. About 5,000 new jobs have been promoted by the IDB during 1989–90 and 40 per cent. of those jobs are connected with new investment from outside Northern Ireland. The total investment associated with various new projects amounts to a record £440 million and the IDB contribution towards that investment works out at 21 per cent.
There have been some spectacular examples of inward investment. On 18 December 1989 the O'Connell Development company of Massachusetts announced its major participation in a £65 million investment in Londonderry. Current and programmed commercial investment in Belfast city by the private sector totals £450 million on top of the £120 million spent in the past five years. A significant proportion of that investment comes from Great Britain, including £75 million for the Castle Court retail, office, car park development. That is a tribute to what Ministers, the Department and the Government are doing.
There are many ways in which one can defeat terrorism and, apart from any political solution, one of the best is an economic solution. That means providing jobs, investment and a good standard of living in the Province. That is why I am happy to support the Government estimates tonight.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute tonight. My first pleasurable task is to join in the welcome to the new hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). I compliment him on the content and eloquence of his speech. Although we shall, undoubtedly, have considerable political differences, none the less I am sure that there are many matters upon which we shall be able to work together for the mutual benefit of our constituents, especially as we represent contiguous constituencies.
It is appropriate, if the House will forgive the pun, that the first vote in the appropriation order is to the Department of Agriculture for which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State is responsible. I was intrigued tonight by the announcement of a new account involving the princely sum of £1,000 for rural development. That is a mind-boggling concept, but no doubt it will be explained when the Parliamentary Under-Secretary replies.
The Minister is well aware that rural development is a particular passion of mine as I represent a rural community. I hope that the Minister can give us some information regarding progress made by his committee on rural development, which was formed in January this year, and the consultations that it has undertaken in order to promote a programme for rural rejuvenation. The committee has had contact with various district councils. I also refer him to the new committee of the Housing Executive with special responsibility for rural housing. Will he ask his committee to join forces with CRISP, the body set up by the International Fund for Ireland, which is seeking advancement in rural development and would be prepared to put money into it? Because of all the bodies involved, I fear that the whole project may be bogged down in administration and consultation and that, once again, although lip service is paid to the concept, nothing will happen in practice. I hope that the Minister will devote his energies to ensuring that we have a practical rural improvement and regeneration programme.
It will not surprise the Minister if I refer next to fisheries because I have made many representations to him and have asked him to use his good offices to expedite the capital improvement of Ardglass harbour, which is the only one of the three fishing ports in Northern Ireland—Kilkeel and Ardglass in my constituency and Portavogie in Strangford—without meaningful capital development of its harbour. The Minister has had the project from the Northern Ireland Fishery Harbour Authority since early in the year and I am disappointed that work did not commence on it, as anticipated, in April. My constituents would be receptive to an announcement in his reply to the debate tonight that work is to start. From the look on the Minister's face, I do not think that that is likely. I urge him to make the announcement soon because unless work is started on the project now it will have to be postponed for yet another year. The fishermen of Ardglass suffered enough last winter without their boats being endangered for another winter.
I wish to refer to part of my constituency which from prehistoric times has been known as the granary of Ulster, the east Down cereal-growing area. Cereal producers in south Down are paying the co-responsibility levy although they are net importers. They have to import, with high transport costs, but at the same time they have to

contribute for over-producing. It is a paradox which should be eradicated as soon as possible so that they may have a better income from a precarious occupation.
I was interested in the complimentary remarks of the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) about economic development and job promotion. I pay tribute to the Department of Economic Development, to the Industrial Development Board and to the Local Enterprise Development Unit for the activity in which they are engaged, but I suggest that the cake which is being baked is not being distributed to all. I was horrified to note from answers to parliamentary questions that in the three years 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89 the Industrial Development Board had brought inward investment companies to my constituency on only seven occasions. That is an indictment—there should be equal opportunities for all the people of Northern Ireland. Over the same period, 316 jobs were created by the various agencies. That is 100 per year, which is less than 1 per cent. of the unemployment figures for South Down.
I know that it is difficult to direct inward investment to certain areas, especially as it is scarce because of our other problems. None the less, it would be flying in the face of the statistics not to be worried that a proper direction is not being taken. Will the Minister ensure that the prospect of inward investment opportunity is given to my constituents, just as to other districts in the Six Counties?
The Minister will know that I was particularly enthusiastic when the Department engaged in a programme of fibre optic link developments, now known as the Star programme. I had great hopes at that time that the introduction of fibre optic links would give rural districts such as South Down and other rural areas of Northern Ireland the opportunity of providing what are known as back office operations in rural communities that are sensibly situated, designed and built. I urge the Minister that the Department, and particularly the Industrial Development Board, should place more emphasis on achieving inward investment of that nature, which is just as economically rewarding as the more industrially and production-orientated inward investment companies.
It appears that there is a great danger of becoming bogged down in administration. The Star task force was inaugurated, comprising representives of the Department of Economic Development, the Industrial Development Board, the Local Enterprise Development Unit, the technology board for Northern Ireland, Queen's university and the university of Ulster. If the Minister can get all those organisations to agree to an immediate course of action, he is a better man than I. The time has come for action to be taken abroad, particularly in Europe and the United States, for the transfer of back office operations into the local areas served by fibre optic links.
The other great industrial job creation potential of an area such as my constituency, and indeed Northern Ireland as a whole, is that of tourism. I must again register my criticism at the lack of a serious cohesive drive to present other regions of Northern Ireland in a comprehensive way. My constituency is unique—it has natural and man-made facilities, environmental assets, historic content, ruins and traditions. Those could all be easily packaged to be promoted as another method of attracting tourists from abroad.
I urge the Minister to consider the issue of encouragement and, if necessary, aid for the provision of


bed accommodation, particularly in districts such as my constituency of South Down. The obvious and easy method is that of farmhouse accommodation development, which has the dual purpose of job and wealth creation, while at the same time creating income for the rural community. It is tragic when one compares Donegal and Down, at opposite extremes of the north of Ireland. Every crossroads in Donegal has bed-and-breakfast or tourist-approved bed accommodation, but in my area there are virtually none, and the only accommodation is highly priced. That market is no longer available for tourism generally. A small family seeking holiday accommodation want attractive, local, cheap farmhouse accommodation.
Other hon. Members have referred to the energy, electricity and gas industries. There is a great danger that in the north of Ireland we might have priced ourselves out of industrial competition in terms of energy charges. It was correctly pointed out that coal has gone up by £10 a tonne. Even more important in terms of industrial development is the enormous increase in the standing charge for electricity. I do not know whether it is a fattening-up process, but it certainly costs the industrialists a considerable amount—22 per cent. last year, 8 per cent. this year, a total of 30 per cent. in two years. Inward investing industrialists would certainly look at that closely.
The concept of rural planning is badly applied in many areas, both in principle and in practice. The principles of planning are not adhered to in any regular manner which would be intelligible to the layman. An important aspect in rural development and in the preservation of the integrity of rural communities is the fact that planning permissions in rural locations are almost always granted for second homes to wealthy people coming in from the cities. As a result, the available sites cannot he used by the indigenous population—by the sons and daughters of local farmers and villagers. The planning department must engage in a policy of setting aside certain areas either for the provision of public housing or for low-cost housing for local people, so that the sons and daughters of farmers and villagers have the chance to build houses there and live in their own environment.
In the context of rural preservation I am appalled at the news just published that 13 primary schools in the maintained sector in my constituency are up for closure, and it seems that in Closkelt, Ballyward, Leitrim, Gransha, and Edenvale, 13 state primary schools are also up for the chop. If that happens, entire rural communities will be wiped out in a couple of years in one fell swoop. If that is paralleled in the maintained sector, it augurs badly for any attempt to stabilise the rural communities of Northern Ireland. It is not a question of money—it is a question of will. The fundamental provision of primary school education in the community is the factor that makes a community gell. The schools are not just teaching institutions but centres to which communities look. They are used as social and recreational bases and are pivotal to village and community life.
I ask the Minister to ensure that the fullest possible consultation takes place with local people—not just with education boards or with the Catholic maintained schools committee, but with the people who will be deprived of institutions which have existed for more than 150 years. If the 20 or 30 closures in my constituency go ahead,

Northern Ireland Departments will be able to forget about rural population maintenance because the centres on which the communities are founded will have disappeared.

Rev. William McCrea: I am thankful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have caught your eye in this important debate. However, the competition to speak is not as great as that which usually faces Northern Ireland Members. At most, 13 Members of a House of 650 have been present during this debate on the expenditure of public funds of £2,496,546,900, and that is a disgrace. It is easy for Members who call themselves the national party, as they did in the election a short while ago, to tell people how interested they are in Northern Ireland. There are three Conservative Members and one Opposition Member in the House. That certainly says something. Perhaps there is not so much competition to speak because we are not on peak-time television. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) was included in the 13 hon. Members that I mentioned.

Mr. Beggs: Does the hon. Member agree that it is reasonable for Northern Ireland Members to expect those hon. Members who try to squeeze us out at Northern Ireland Question Time to be here? Where are they? Perhaps they will take note of the debate and desist from the temptation to ask questions that are handed to them by party Whips. That is done to fill space and prevent Northern Ireland Members who have serious matters to address on behalf of their constituents from being called to ask questions.

Rev. William McCrea: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs). I am certain that the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Ministers have something to do with many of the planted questions. If one looks carefully at the Official Report of the last Northern Ireland Question Time and at some of the prepared questions and prepared answers, one sees that in one case the answer given was not to the question that was asked but to the one that followed it. The detailed answer would certainly lead Northern Ireland Members to think that, in the run-up to a by-election, some hon. Members wanted to pretend that they had a special interest in internal matters in Northern Ireland. They asked about issue such as licences and breathalysers. They asked about little matters that many hon. Members on this side of the water would not have known about had they not been inded details of them.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Bottomley): Before we are diverted too far from the order, it is worth making two or three small points. The hon. Gentleman thinks that an interest in breathalysers is in some way connected with the Upper Bann by-election. That is an insult to the electorate of Upper Bann. If the hon. Gentleman had been watching me for the last four years, he would have realised that questions about such matters have not started recently.
If the hon. Gentleman would like a planted question, he should have a talk with me, because many interesting bits of information could be placed on the record. It is occasionally useful to have an hon. Member put down a question and it would be useful if we could have a deal about that. Before the Upper Bann by-election campaign, at one Northern Ireland Question Time only half the


Northern Ireland Members put down questions. Perhaps we could remind each other of the right time to put down questions, because that could lead to a better spread.

Rev. William McCrea: I thought that the Minister's intervention would turn into his winding-up speech, and that he had changed his timing. I do not think that the questions about breathalysers had a personal significance for Upper Bann. However, Conservative Members had to ask questions about something and they asked about matters that were relevant to Northern Ireland.
I would be delighted to find a genuine interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland. Interesting questions have been asked on other occasions, but it is strange that tonight the Chamber is almost empty. The Government have a majority of over 100 but only four Conservative Members are present. That shows that something is wrong and I hope that that will be noted by the electorate. The Minister and the Whip have to be here to carry on the business, and that means that only two Conservative Members are willing to be here. That is strange when one bears in mind that we are talking about £2,496 million of public money. Therefore, I have to put a question mark over the sincerity of those hon. Members. I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is rational for me, or any other hon. Member representing Northern Ireland, to question this, bearing in mind the recent heightened interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland shown by Conservative Members.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to address the House on a matter of considerable importance, because financial aid to Northern Ireland is vital for us. Vote 1 for the Department of Agriculture deals with marketing and processing and vote 2 with scientific and veterinary services. While I welcome the aid given to farming, which is the largest industry in my constituency, I must express the alarm and dismay felt by farmers in Northern Ireland about the effect of the BSE scare on Ulster meat exports. What is known as mad cow disease has already resulted in the cancellation of an order for meat from the Province to, for example, a German market chain because of the inability to obtain BSE-free certificates.
Farmers in my constituency and in the Province as a whole find this strange. They believe that they are being victimised because of the high incidence of BSE in Great Britain. They find it strange, as should the House, that the disease has a special relationship with constitutional boundaries. The meat plants in the south of Ireland can call their product BSE-free, yet the Department of Agriculture in the north of Ireland cannot do the same for meat there. Is this just a United Kingdom disease, is it something that attacks British cattle, or does it stop at Auchnacloy and immediately start at Castlederg?
This is a serious matter, and I am sure that the Minister will remember that it is most serious, because farmers in the Province will go to the wall. The veterinary section of the Department should intervene and get Northern Ireland special status within the United Kingdom. If this needs to be argued in Brussels, I trust that Ministers will promise the House that this will be done. It is a known fact that, on the mainland tonight, butchers are advertising "BSE-free meat from Ireland". Where is it coming from? The Minister should know that one of the realities of life is that there is a great deal of smuggling across the border.

Northern Ireland farmers will have to go to the south, where they are happy to take the meat and sell it to the mainland with this stamp on it. That cannot be right or permissible.
Northern Ireland is suffering for something for which it is not responsible. As the Secretary of State said yesterday at the agriculture show, there is little incidence of BSE in the island of Ireland as a whole. However, from the way that the media have put it, one would think that, although there was no incidence in the south of Ireland and some in Northern Ireland, as the latter is part of the United Kingdom, there must be rigid control on the cattle in Northern Ireland.
It is all very well for the Minister to tell us that the Department of Agriculture spends money on marketing and processing, but there can hardly be marketing and processing because of the situation of the Northern Ireland farmer. It is a serious matter and one that has nothing to do with boundaries. Northern Ireland farmers produce the best standard of British beef and I believe that that beef should be exported throughout the world. We in Northern Ireland are proud of our farming as a whole.
How is the Department of Agriculture succeeding in encouraging set-aside on arable land for alternative farming and non-agricultural purposes? Does the Minister believe that the present grants are attractive enough to encourage such diversification?
Does the Minister agree that the Government's policy is that the private sector should be the major vehicle for economic regeneration in the Province? How does he view the present state of manufacturing and other parts of the business fraternity within the private sector, following the dramatic fall in employment in manufacturing over the past decade? The private sector is dominated now by service industries.
Has the Minister studied the report of April 1990 from the Northern Ireland Economic Council? Is he deeply concerned that the Northern Ireland private sector is small when compared with that in the rest of the United Kingdom and that manufacturing firms within the Northern Ireland private sector are themselves small? The report states:
The private sector will have to be able to adjust to rapidly changing technological and market conditions with greater success than has been evident in the past.
Can the House be assured that the Government will act constructively in a supporting role as the private sector seeks to prepare itself for the challenge of 1992? To ensure that that happens, the Government must consider additional incentives. Does the Minister feel that all the necessary financial resources are available to him and to the Department to rejuvenate Northern Ireland's industrial base?
I represent an area of high unemployment. Part of my constituency has the second highest unemployment rate in the United Kingdom. I am sure that the Minister will understand that my constituents are concerned about the economy and its relevance to their lives in future. As I come from an area which is in the west of the Province, I am sure that the House will understand my concern about the jobs that have been created recently and their siting.
I ask the Government to give careful consideration to areas in the west of the Province such as Mid-Ulster, which has suffered so much from industrial neglect. Surely the Government can promise my constituents that fresh efforts will be made to encourage industrial development


in Cookstown, which has the second highest unemployment figure in the entire United Kingdom. Will similar efforts be made to ensure that industrial development comes to Omagh, Fintona, Dromore and last, but by no means least, Castlederg, which has suffered great deprivation? Special incentives are needed.
I fear that there will not be a fair share of the jobs that are being created for the areas to which I have referred. I ask the Minister to take account of the jobs that have been created recently and exactly where they have been created. They have not been of great assistance to my constituency. I welcome all jobs but the Minister will understand me when I say that I must beseech the Department to consider providing special aid to the constituency of Mid-Ulster.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I think that what I am about to say will fit into the debate more appropriately at this stage than in my reply. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) recognises that a partnership with Ministers can assist in getting investors, especially those from overseas, to consider developments in areas with which they are not necessarily familiar. Not everyone overseas will have heard of Cookstown, although it matters greatly to the hon. Gentleman and to me.
We are talking about a partnership, but if Ministers say, "Have you thought about Cookstown?", and the first thing that happens is that, when people get to Cookstown, they buy the local paper and discover that Cookstown council is not talking to Ministers, it will be difficult. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could quietly talk to some of the people that he is associated with to try to overcome some of the apparent prejudice. It is not for me to ask people to come to see me, but a united front can be of some advantage to promote the area, as people in many other areas have realised.

Rev. William McCrea: I doubt whether the first thing that the major industrialists of the world do is buy the Mid Ulster Mail. I would like to think that they did but I must in all honesty say that I think that the Minister is pushing it too far and trying to score points for himself.
Certainly there are people in the Cookstown area who belong to other political parties which seem to have an open door to and the ready ear of the Minister, but that has certainly not helped Cookstown much. Therefore, let us not play a little game in which the Minister and the Northern Ireland Office seek to score points with Cookstown council. In the past, Omagh district council has had discussions with the Minister. I am talking about the deputation from Omagh. Why did that not bring prosperity and thousands of new jobs to the district? The Minister is pushing the wrong point. He must understand that there are differences of opinion and that people in Northern Ireland have been incensed by the way that the Government have dealt with their constitutional rights.
The Minister could demonstrate his openness and fairness by saying that the Government will no longer force upon the people of Northern Ireland something which is totally against their will but that, for a change, they will listen to the will of the ballot box. The lesson of the election in Upper Bann will have to be learnt.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) made an excellent speech this evening and I congratulate him on his address to the House. I trust that he enjoys his tenure

of office as the Member of Parliament as much as his predecessor, the late Mr. McCusker, who I believe enjoyed representing the good people of Upper Bann.
I ask the Minister to go beyond the political arena and to appreciate the need for industrial devlopment in Mid-Ulster. The unemployed are members of the Province-wide majority community and of the minority community. I want the Minister to take the issue away from the political arena. We must get away from a headcount of whether people are nationalist or Unionist. I want to see an industrial base in Cookstown, Omagh, Fintona, Dromore, Castlederg and all the other little towns. The Minister could proudly take credit for that, if he so desired at a future date, and say he played a part—not the whole—in ensuring the prosperity of people in my constituency.
As regards outside investment, there will have to be special incentives for industrialists to come to the west of the Province, or the number of jobs will continue to stagnate. The Minister has to bear in mind that industry will stay near the ports. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) is correct to say that the spread of jobs—I welcome all jobs—shows that some areas have not been touched or there has only been a smattering of jobs throughout a large part of the Province.
I have the privilege and the honour to represent the west of the Province. I trust that the Minister will accept that I am genuinely asking the Government to intervene on behalf of industry and future industry in my consitutency. Has research been carried out into industrial development in the areas to which I have referred by the Industrial Development Board or the Local Enterprise Development Unit? If the Minister has up-to-date information, I should appreciate it if he could send it to me. I hope that it will be good news for my constituency.
As for the Department of Economic Development, I am disappointed that the attempts to encourage tourism have not been co-ordinated. According to the explanatory note to vote 2, grants towards the provision, extension and improvement of hotels, guest or boarding houses and self-catering establishments have been reduced from £1,229,000 to £829,000. I ask the Minister to give the reason for that considerable reduction in grant aid.

Mr. Beggs: We all appreciate the recent investment in hotel development in Northern Ireland, but the fact remains that those whom we should like to visit Northern Ireland in greater numbers will be unable to afford to stay in such high-standard accommodation. Ought not the Government to consider providing assistance so that those who can afford to pay only modest rates will be able to find accommodation? The strength of the tourist industry in Northern Ireland was built upon coach tours. Northern Ireland is losing out on that trade. We shall be unable to get back unless we provide accommodation for those people.

Rev. William McCrea: I agree wholeheartedly. We must build up that trade again, but we shall be unable to do so with a budget of the size that we are dealing with in this debate. It has been greatly reduced.
According to vote 3, part of that money is provided for the loan of special aids to registered disabled people who require them in order to obtain or retain employment. According to the special provision for assistance to disabled people who are in employment or seeking


employment, there are job introduction schemes and capital grant schemes for adaptations to premises and equipment. However, that grant has been reduced by £90,000. Something is radically wrong if cuts have been made in the employment grant schemes for the disabled. This is the time to expand, not to cut, those grants.
Under vote 5, which covers expenditure by the Department of Economic Development, I must enter a plea on behalf of both industrial and private users of electricity. I trust that the Department will stop fattening the goose for privatisation. The Province can do without the privatisation of the electricity industry, bearing in mind the higher living costs in the Province. That is one privatisation which the Government can do without, and I trust that the Minister will take note of that.
I find the expenditure on assistance to the gas industry under vote 5 rather strange. Rather than trying to assist the gas industry it appears that the Government are trying to bury it, or, as the hon. Member for South Down would probably say, give the gas industry the last rites. At this late stage, will the Government change course and ensure that the proposed gas pipeline between Great Britain and the island of Ireland is routed to a location in Northern Ireland? Surely it is essential that the British people of Northern Ireland should share the national asset of natural gas. I am sure that the Minister understands that the people of Northern Ireland feel that the Government have let them down. I trust that the Government will bear that in mind and take some action.
I have to draw to the Minister's attention some issues involving the vote on the Department of the Environment that concern certainly my constituents and, I am sure, the constituents of other hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies. I note that the all-party House of Commons Environment Committee is probing conservation in the Province. I welcome the visit and the investigation by the Committee, and I trust that it will do all in its power to preserve the countryside.
However, I must draw the Minister's attention to a matter of grave concern to my constituents in Mid-Ulster—the Rio Tinto Zinc operation outside Omagh in County Tyrone. A motion will be tabled in the House and I trust that it will be signed by right hon. and hon. Members concerning the environmental and social implications of that multinational gold rush in Cavanacaw, Omagh, County Tyrone. It is disgusting that a large trench has been dug in the countryside, of which my constituents gave me some photographs yesterday. I believe that the operation has continued for a year without a licence and that the Government have now granted the company restrospective planning permission.
Are the Government giving the company an unofficial nod and wink? Are they not genuinely concerned about the environmental and social implications? That huge trench has been dug only 140 m from human habitation, necessitating the removal of 40,000 tonnes of farmland. All members of the local district council representing the wide spectrum of political parties within that council have been unanimous in expressing their opposition to the project. Will the Minister ensure that the truth about the project is known, that the company does not get the land by

deception or on false pretences and that the pollution that concerns many people in the area will cause the Department to intervene as a matter of urgency?
What knowledge does the Minister have? The operation is on the verge of a scenic wildlife preserve. It is disgusting that the Government have given the company a nod and a wink and then, after a long delay, have granted retrospective planning permission that would never have been achieved had the company approached it in the proper way. However, the company went ahead. It seems to pay to railroad proposals through against the will of the people and their elected representatives.
I asked the Minister to clarify the matter. If he has no particular knowledge of the operation, I trust that he will look into it. If he goes to Cavanacaw, he will be able to look into it, as it is certainly big enough. He will have to stand to one side, or he will drop into it. Seriously, it is causing great concern and I trust that the Minister will bear that in mind.
Under the Department of Education vote, will the Minister confirm that the budget allocated for nursery school places is sufficient to meet the needs of the community? What proportion of the child population is receiving nursery education? What representation has the Department received on this matter, and what response has been forthcoming to meet the concerns that have been expressed by parents in the Province?
Will the Minister comment on the evidence given to a conference yesterday that repair and maintenance bills for Ulster schools will eat up the bulk of Government cash earmarked for education reform? That has caused much consternation within the education fraternity.
There have been recent press reports of school closures. I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member for South Down on this issue. Whether it be the maintained school or the controlled school, there is much concern in the rural community that the promises of curriculum support for rural schools will not be kept.
Home help services have caused much concern to my constituents. The pensions given to our pensioners are inadequate, given the higher cost of energy and food in the Province. They are on a meagre pension. It is disgraceful that they are left to live on the breadline, bearing in mind that many of them grafted hard to build the Province into the industrious place that it is.
Will the Minister give a categoric assurance that the citizens of the United Kingdom, particularly of Northern Ireland, are not suffering because of the financial burden of the sight test? I should be interested to hear what he has to say about that.
I am delighted to have had the opportunity of raising these matters, which concern our constituents, under this wide appropriation order. I trust that the Minister will give us some pleasure with answers that will at least bring a little enjoyment to our constituents.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Right hon. and hon. Members are aware that all the elected representatives of constitutional parties in Northern Ireland reject the Order in Council procedure. It is a most unsatisfactory and increasingly unacceptable method of dealing with Northern Ireland business.
I am delighted to welcome my Ulster Unionist colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann


(Mr. Trimble). I congratulate him on the content and presentation of his maiden speech and join him in paying tribute to his loyal and courageous predecessor. I wish my hon. Friend every joy and satisfaction in a worthwhile parliamentary career. He enjoys the support of the majority of his constituents, having gained 59 per cent.—20,547—of the votes cast. The Conservative challenger polled less than 3 per cent. and received only 1,038 votes. The Alliance candidate was almost wiped out. Votes for that party fell from the 1987 election level by 1,439 to a 948 low. The Right to Vote Labour candidate polled 235 votes and the SDP candidate received 154. All the mainstream mainland parties lost their deposits along with other parties.
The two other Unionist candidates received more votes than the Conservative party, the Labour party and the SDP. Surely that is a clear message. As has already been said, it was a total rejection of the policies imposed on the Northern Ireland electorate. I make those observations to emphasise the solid support of the Northern Ireland electorate for candidates who are entirely opposed to the Anglo-Irish diktat and the Order in Council procedure.
As a matter of urgency, there should be a determined effort to establish proper procedures for dealing with Northern Ireland business at Westminster, and such procedures should largely replace Orders in Council. At the same time, establishing democratic institutions in Northern Ireland and giving the elected representatives of constitutional parties there increased responsibility would show that the enthusiasm for democracy expressed openly in the House in welcoming the replacement of communist regimes in eastern Europe is also applied to restoring democratic rights and equality of treatment within the United Kingdom for British citizens in Northern Ireland. Will our Government and the Opposition recognise the repeatedly expressed wishes of Northern Ireland Members for an end to Order in Council procedures and to many Northern Ireland Office policies?
I refer briefly to votes 1 and 2 for the Department of Agriculture. I welcome the continuing support for the marketing, production and processing of agricultural products. Northern Ireland farming families, the industry and the Department of Agriculture have worked steadily over the years to produce high quality food products that meet the ever-higher standards demanded by consumers. Will the Secretary of State and his other Ministers continue robustly to defend the meat industry and the health status of our livestock produce against the unscientific speculation that has caused unwarranted anxiety here in Great Britain? Will he reassure consumers that Northern Ireland food products are safe and that the Department of Agriculture scientific and veterinary service is adequately resourced to ensure consumer safety? Does the Minister agree with Dr. Verner Wheelock of the food policy studies unit at Bradford university, who was reported in the Belfast Telegraph as saying:
The way in which the authorities in England are reacting in taking British beef off the menu for fear of BSE is quite stupid"?
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House would probably concur with that statement.
Will the sums voted in the order be adequate to cover costs that might be incurred if emergency measures become necessary to cope with exports lost temporarily as

a result of scaremongering? Has the Department of Agriculture yet offered help to the Northern Ireland Meat Exporters Association and to meat plants?
With reference to votes 1, 2 and 3 for the Department of Economic Development, I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) in concluding negotiations with the Japanese company, Ryobi Ltd., which will eventually provide about 100 jobs in Carrickfergus in my constituency. I share the concern that has been expressed by other hon. Members about the scarcity of jobs and job creation schemes and their feeling of loss when new opportunities are located elsewhere. If we face that problem jointly and encourage more investment to Northern Ireland, we hope that in the near, rather than in the distant future, it will be possible for areas that are not benefiting at present to achieve a fairer share of inward investment. As the constituency Member of Parliament, I am delighted to welcome that Japanese company to Northern Ireland.
I am sure that the Minister will agree that the excellent industrial relations record of responsible trade unionists, and the availability of a highly educated, trained, skilled, industrious and versatile work force, backed by the support of the Industrial Development Board, will, together with an outstanding environment, and any number of attractive locations from which a company can choose to locate, continue to make Northern Ireland attractive to other overseas investors.
I am sure that the Minister will also agree that. although grants help to attract and encourage inward investment, many of those who take the decision on where to locate do so for other reasons. Grant considerations come later. Again, I pay tribute to the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North who went an extra mile to give support to that new inward investment.
I ask the Minister to take a closer look at the provision of management training in Northern Ireland with a view not only to raising the standard of our management expertise, but to providing increased opportunities and a greater number of places on management training courses. As we get new investment, we shall need more and more management expertise.
I sincerely support the aims and objectives set out in the framework document for the Training and Employment Agency. I know that other hon. Members from Northern Ireland will be watching its progress carefully. We hope that that body will be successful in helping to ensure that employees in Northern Ireland have an attractive range of skills and expertise that will enable them to benefit from new employment opportunities.
Vote 3 relates to the community workshops. Unlike the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), who referred to the problems experienced by community workshops, I shall be direct and simply ask the Minister to tell us the Government's long-term policy towards them. is there a timetabling target for reducing those schemes? It is thought in some quarters that the assurances arid guarantees given by the Minister are not being honoured in the same spirit by officials, who have diluted them.
How many of those workshop schemes have already been forced to close because they cannot operate under the new funding arrangements? Will the Minister assure the House that adequate support is available on request to assist workshop providers to manage the limited resources


allocated to them, and endeavour to ensure that payments for claims submitted from the workshops are speeded up as much as possible?
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) referred to the provision for the disabled in the same vote. In my experience, disabled people want to help themselves, and we have a duty to provide the resources to enable them to do so. With more funding, more could be done.
Let me again register a protest about the fact that consumers in Northern Ireland are being denied choice in the type of energy that they wish to use. They are also being denied access to cheaper natural gas. It is not good enough to blame past records of gas used; the gas produced in Northern Ireland has always been too expensive. Consumers in Northern Ireland should be given real choice and access to a natural gas supply. I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to making choice available, and to seek EC funding to provide a cross-channel link to Northern Ireland from the British gas grid. Can he tell us whether the words
assistance to the gas industry
—in vote 5—would permit an assessment of the cost of a pipeline to Northern Ireland from Morecambe bay or the Scottish coast to be carried out?
Teachers in all schools find that the administrative demands arising from the education reform programme are impinging on their teaching time. For most conscientious Northern Ireland teachers, it also impinges on their out-of-school time. Can the Minister, at the earliest opportunity, consider further reducing pupil-teacher ratios in Northern Ireland, and making available more discretionary posts to area boards for distribution to schools where a need for extra part-time support has been identified? Can he also give an assurance that curriculum demands arising from the reform programme will not force the closure of all small schools serving isolated rural areas, and that the Department of Education and Science will make every effort to retain viable education in our rural areas?
Many parents are annoyed that in the current transfer procedure their children are unable to obtain places in the school of the parents' first choice. Parents in the Craigavon area claim that they have no real choice. The Minister should consider closely the validity of that claim made by people who feel aggrieved. I should also appreciate it if the Minister would tell us what arrangements there are to permit parents who are dissatisfied with the outcome of the transfer procedure to appeal.
I record my support for the case made by the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) for improved pollution control and an end to the dumping of sewage off our seaboard. It is absolutely disgraceful that the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland has still not made provisions in my constituency and others to end the practice of disposing of raw sewage into the sea. My constituents make no distinction between untreated sewage and chopped-up sewage. They do not want it dumped in the coastal area and the rich fish harvest damaged or contaminated in any way. I trust that steps will be taken to help us to improve further the tourist attractiveness of the area, which is already deemed to be

one of outstanding natural beauty, by ensuring that proper sewage farms are in place and that our coastal waters and beaches are free from pollution.
Ministers responsible for the environment and economic development should also get together as quickly as possible to discuss how to solve the blight and the eyesore created by the limestone works in Glenarm village. That village is deemed to be worthy of conservation, but it and the surrounding area have been contaminated and polluted by limestone dust. I sincerely believe that the company is prepared to bear its share of the cost of relocation. It would greatly enhance our attractive Antrim coast road if those works were relocated.
Before we next meet to discuss an appropriation order, I trust that positive steps on some of those issues will have been taken.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Before I comment on the draft appropriation order, I join others in welcoming to our Chamber the new hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). I do so not for the sake of convention, but because I genuinely welcome him here.
The hon. Gentleman and I have known one another for many years. In the past 20 years we have served on many committees and spoken together on many platforms. Those of us who heard his fine excellent maiden speech will recognise that he will bring a considerable knowledge of the law not only to his party but to others and that that will aid deliberations in this Chamber. He has brought commitment, ability and conviction on Unionist principles to an area which had a tremendous constituency Member.
Having fought the by-election, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the high regard that the constituents of Upper Bann had for the former Member. He will know, therefore, that he inherits a constituency which has been well looked after and that he also inherits a mission. It was the dying wish of his predecessor that the Anglo-Irish Agreement should be destroyed and that an acceptable alternative should replace it. The hon. Member for Upper Bann will willingly lift up that torch and fight the same cause for his constituents.
The hon. Gentleman has our best wishes as he commences his parliamentary career. I agree with so many of his remarks that it is impossible to go over each one, but I noticed how carefully he chose the terminology of representative institutions. The Province is so bereft of democratic structures at any level that it is clear that more responsibility needs to be put into the hands of locally elected representatives. The hon. Gentleman will have seen from his short experience of the House the exceptional way in which Northern Ireland is dealt with. He referred to a planning instrument, which I will deal with later, setting up an entirely different procedure for Northern Ireland from that for other parts of the United Kingdom. Having heard his colleague the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) talking about grass cutting in his constituency and about broken windows in public sector housing, he should not feel in the least embarrassed in following his hon. Friend down that road, for this is one of the few opportunities that we have to raise those nitty-gritty, bread-and-butter issues in the House. No one in any other chamber has an opportunity to raise them.
The debate may not lend itself to cramming the House full of interested listeners, as happens at Question Time. I,


too, wish that the Tory Whips, when planting questions, would at least ensure that hon. Members can read the questions properly, instead of muffing them, as happened recently. We are happy to see Members from other parts of the United Kingdom taking a genuine interest in Northern Ireland issues—we just wish that they would spread their interest more evenly over the deliberations on Northern Ireland.
On the appropriation order it is usually best to make most of one's remarks on the subject matter which is the responsibility of the Minister who is to reply to the debate. One has a better chance of getting answers because he does not have to consult other Ministers, and one does not get the standard reply. "My colleague will write to you." The Minister should know the answers to all the questions. As a member of East Belfast conservative association, the Minister will want to do everything possible to assist the people of East Belfast. If he does not, I will tell them that the Conservative party will do nothing for them. If he does something, however, I will tell the people of East Belfast that I have done something for them, too, so he cannot win either way.
Vote 2, expenditure by the Department of the Environment on housing services, comes under the Minister's environment portfolio. I want to talk about one housing estate, Mertoun Park, which is on the boundary between my constituency and that of the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) and on the periphery of the city of Belfast. The residents of that housing estate, which was built six or seven years ago and consists of about 106 houses, feel that they have been forgotten. The houses are good, but the estate is deplorably designed. It is so badly designed that the in-house architects for the Housing Executive refer to it as an experiment that went wrong. The residents can confirm that the design has led to a series of problems which are part of their day-to-day lives and require special attention from the Housing Executive.
The design is such that the houses surround small courts. In a space little greater than that between the Benches in front of me is a playground for 50 or 60 children. By any modern standards, that would be insufficent for the layout of Housing Executive estates. The children have no alternative play area other than the road, which has not been properly adopted—or if it has, it was adopted only in the past few days or weeks—six or seven years after the housing estate was built. I urge the Minister to provide the Housing Executive with the finance necessary to provide adequate play facilities for that area because the Housing Executive owns the field adjacent to Mertoun Park.
If it was not bad enough that the residents have all those housing difficulties in relation to design features, they happen to be opposte Kinnegar Army base, which provides them with another problem. The helicopters from the Army base fly low directly overhead. The net result is that the houses shake, their windows rattle and people looking out often wonder whether the helicopters will manage to clear the houses and the trees around the estate. In other districts, grants have been made available for double glazing and it is clearly essential that that should be done in this case.

Mr. Kilfedder: The hon. Gentleman is referring to a matter that is in my constituency of North Down. I have already pursued the issue a number of times with the Ministry of Defence and asked about getting money to

provide double glazing for residents in the Holywood area of my constituency. I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's support. He may rest assured, as may the residents, that I have not given up the battle.

Mr. Robinson: I am grateful for those comments. If the hon. Gentleman refers to the electoral register, he will see that Mertoun Park is split between our two constituencies. He is right that a small part of the estate is in his constituency, and a larger part is in mine. Together we can happily join forces in urging the Minister to take prompt action to deal with a district which, sadly, has been so badly neglected by the Housing Executive and where residents are under so much strain because of the Army camp nearby.
The residents in no way want to make it difficult for the Army operations to continue. They simply want to enjoy the facilities granted to the residents of other Housing Executive estates affected by noise pollution. I trust that the Minister will do something to alleviate that problem.
I wish to refer to an issue that I have raised with Northern Ireland Ministers over the past four years—for that is the length of time that people living in the Bloomfield area have suffered a blight which affects house sales, the quality of life, and the environment. There is a large area known locally as the Sunblest bakery site. After the bakery was burnt down, rubble remained there and the residents have had to live with the consequences, including bricks being thrown through their windows, young people gathering and making bonfires, and all the other nuisances associated with an abandoned site.
The Northern Ireland Office decided to permit two housing associations to purchase the site so that they could build homes on it. Unfortunately, the Minister has not provided the money necessary to enable that to be done. Both the Minister and his Department recognise that houses are needed in that area, but money has still not been forthcoming. Not only are people being deprived of accommodation on an available site, but existing residents are suffering the consequences of the dereliction. I urge the Minister somehow to squeeze out of his budget the finance required to allow the two housing associations to start building.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann referred to the planning and building regulations draft order that the Minister is promoting. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) referred to a gaping hole in his constituency and said that the Department had granted retrospective planning permission almost as a matter of course. In some instances, that seems to developers to be a better way of obtaining consent. I have raised the same issue with the Minister before, and I suspect that I shall have to do so again as his new proposals do not meet the case.
The Minister's solution for dealing with retrospective applications is to give the Department power to require a person who has built without obtaining consent to make an application subsequently. That is not a suitable punishment for breaching planning controls. In many ways, it will not even serve as a deterrent. Only if a builder refuses to make an application, having already ignored planning controls, will any fine be levied.
I have put to the Minister the argument made in a previous Northern Ireland Assembly that a proper penalty should be imposed on those who commence building without receiving planning permission, which could take


the form either of a fine or a more expensive retrospective application. I urge the Minister to re-examine that issue and to make the necessary changes to the 1972 order so that it makes clear that people are required to make a planning application in advance, rather than only after the Department catches up with them. If the Minister does not recognise that that it is a major issue, he should contact town halls throughout the Province.
I have told the Minister before in the House that 25 per cent. of the planning applications made to Castlereagh borough council relate to schemes on which building work had already commenced. At every planning meeting, the council deals with retrospective applications, and that is in a borough where much house building and other types of building is going on.
I urge the Minister to take this matter seriously because by and large people are building without permission and hoping that they will get away with it. They know that if they do not, the Department will not look closely at the merits of the case in planning terms but will consider whether the person can be asked to pull down the structure. The Minister now has the opportunity for a new planning order to address this issue and find a solution which will be a proper disincentive to people who are tempted to build without planning permission.
I stress the point made by the hon. Member for North Down about the rights of objectors. Those rights must be protected, and that can best be done through district councils—so long as they have the power to call for an article 22 inquiry. The new draft planning order provides an opportunity to amend that article by removing the two-month requirement. That would significantly strengthen the hand of district councils and balance the scales between planning applicants and local objectors.
On the matter of the Department of Health and Social Services, I strongly concur with what my hon. Friend the Member for North Down said about the elderly. He has raised the matter in the House on several occasions and on each occasion I have endorsed what he said. I wish that somebody would listen to the two of us and recognise that there is a real need for proper concessionary licences and free transport for the elderly. Those things could be done at very little cost. They would probably cost less than it cost the Government to run the Upper Bann by-election campaign for the Conservative candidate and would do much more good for the people of Northern Ireland.
It is essential to remove the anomaly about concessionary television licences. I do not like the way that the Minister appears to be moving towards eliminating the anomaly by making everyone pay the full television licence fee. I urge him to set a concessionary fee for the elderly right across the board rather than continuing with the present inequitable system.
The last matter that I wish to raise may cause me to step on the toes of the hon. Member for North Down, but I know that he will be happy to support me because he and I share a concern about the issue. It relates to a proposal by the Eastern health and social services board to close two play schools—one in the hon. Gentleman's constituency at Tullycarnet and one in mine at Knocknagoney. The proposition by the board, which I assume is to meet the requirement for cuts in the Health Service proposed by this Tory Government, means that

people who are much in need of such facilities and who made great use of them are to be disadvantaged by their loss.
I trust that the Minister will urge his colleague who has responsibility for such matters in the Department of Health and Social Services to use his influence on the board. The board should be told that if it wants to engage in penny pinching it should not do it where it will hurt people. I am talking about areas in which there is much need. The board must not remove facilities which have been an excellent aid to people. In my constituency and in the constituency of North Down the united view held by local government representatives and parliamentary representatives is that the Minister should step in and do something about this.
It is right to pose my final question now that the Secretary of State has joined us. It comes under the heading of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I am sure that the Minister will look at the sums granted in the appropriation fund, and give his considered opinion as to whether it will soon be necessary to present a money order to grant further sums to the Assembly. Does he expect a greater use of that building to be made over the next few months?

Rev. Martin Smyth: I found it interesting when, earlier, the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) joined the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) in speaking about pollution from North Down into Belfast lough. Some people in Northern Ireland think that there is greater pollution in other parts of North Down, nearer to Belfast, and we should like that to be cleared up as well.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). We served together in the Northern Ireland constitutional convention, on which he also represented south Belfast. As he is a senior lecturer in law at Queen's university, in my constituency, that is another reason for welcoming him, although my alma maters were Magee university college, Londonderry and Trinity college, Dublin. I came from what was the bastion of loyalty, and he comes from what has, in the past 20 years, been a bastion of republicanism. I am delighted that his presence tonight has shown something of his ability.
My hon. Friend succeeds the late Harold McCusker, who came from close to Lurgan. Those who know Northern Ireland know that that is the spade town of Ulster, where we call a spade a spade. Harold was prepared to do so. Sometimes people did not like that, but at least they could not say that they did not understand what he was talking about. The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) teased my hon. Friend by saying that one should not be controversial in maiden speeches, but that my hon. Friend was getting close to it, and that he would not be heard in silence in future. My hon. Friend could have been even more controversial. He could have reminded the House that a Tory was originally an Irish Jacobite, and in this tercentenary year of the battle of the Boyne, we are glad that we beat the Tories again in Upper Bann.
Vote 1 for the Department of Health and Social Services deals with money for hospitals. A constituency case highlights the problem not only in Northern Ireland but in health care provision in the rest of the kingdom. We


are told that people are being given more choice. At times, I suspect that it is the choice of the turkey just before Christmas, which means that there is little choice left for the poor bird. The Jubilee hospital in south Belfast, which is part of the city hospital, has served the local community, and the wider community, for many years. I should like some clarification on this issue.
I tabled an oral question for the latest Northern Ireland questions, but because of the popularity of television appearances, and the movement towards the by-election, a large number of hon. Members representing other parts of the kingdom asked questions. As a result, I received only a formal written response. I wanted to know what guidance was given to the boards and units of management throughout Northern Ireland on the provision of services. I understand that the senior official in the Eastern health and social services board has told the unit of management, in the presence of others in City hospital, and Jubilee hospital in particular, that the board will not be purchasing obstetric and maternity services from Jubilee hospital. That is one way of stopping provision. I ask the Department to examine the matter. What does it have to say about in-house tendering? What does it have to say about competitive tendering? If my memory is correct, Jubilee hospital has been undertaking about 3,000 deliveries a year at a more economic rate than other hospitals. That runs counter to the judgment that the Eastern board and other boards must accept the lowest bid in competitive tendering.
We have been told this evening that responsibility lies with the board, not with the Minister. The same is true of education and library boards. When I heard the Minister's response, I was reminded of an incident in my boyhood, when my mother chastised my brother and I for splashing water round the kitchen. I said, "It wasn't me." We were twins, and I was holding my brother up to the tap so that he could splash the water. The Minister seemed to be saying what I said when he told us, "It is not my responsibility. The responsibility lies with the board." But who appoints the board and who ensures that the elected representatives who are members of the council are in the minority so that the Department, through its nominees, has the whip hand? I ask that consideration be given to the development of hospital services. It would be much better to tell the people that a hospital is to be closed rather than to have a moratorium, place pressures upon the staff and demoralise all those within a hospital that provides a service to the community.
The work of occupational therapists comes under vote 1 of the Department of Health and Social Services. They are a group whose care and provision affect the entire community. Are there enough occupational therapists? If not, why has their establishment been frozen? How many of them are in the various boards? How many of them are

involved in community occupational therapy and are geared for domiciliary services? We are supposedly thinking and moving in the direction of care in the community, and those people will be needed even more. As I understand it, the basic grade in our hospitals has been the subject of a freeze, and in north and west Belfast there has been a waiting list since 1988. How can we say that we are providing care in the community if a waiting list means a wait of six weeks? We must try to help people to develop their skills and to rehabilitate themselves to live in the community. Occupational therapy needs to be examined with greater accuracy and understanding.
When he replies to the debate, the Minister will have been told by a close colleague in the Department on this side of the water that Project 2000 has been promoted. This week it was announced that funds have been provided for it and that various schemes have been cleared. How far have we gone to develop Project 2000 in Northern Ireland? Have I missed an announcement that the scheme has already started, and that it has been recognised in one of the nursing schools? Is there a shortage of funds in that field, especially in the Eastern health and social services board, which has to provide so much specialised one-to-one nursing, partly due to the impact of the terrorist campaign? I understand that the impact of the regrading scheme for nurses left the board with a £6 million shortfall in the budget before it began this year. The board cannot make that up by economies and savings.
Another group that I wish to mention are the disabled, and specifically young deaf people. What provision is being made to train them? I am speaking in particular of the Department of Economic Development vote 3. What provision has been made to train employers and social workers to handle young deaf people who are seeking employment? One of their difficulties is that they are not as literate as other young people, but many of them, if they are treated with understanding, could be outstanding in their jobs. But many employers dismiss them straight away because they cannot communicate with them. I know that young deaf people in England and in Northern Ireland are seeking to promote and to help training. Is the Department doing anything to help through its training programme?
I mentioned transfer procedures earlier, and my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) also raised the matter. I believe that appeals must be in by 1 June and will be decided by 15 June. If the evolution of the education system means that we put more people into the grammar school system—that is the choice that people make, and if they have the qualifications to go there they feel deprived if they are not given the opportunity—will we not endanger many secondary schools which could provide the technical and vocational training that so many of our young people need?

Mr. Harry Barnes: It is often stimulating to study similar situations and try to find the differences. Often the media are interested in the differences that exist inside major political parties, rather than the distinctions between them. In Northern Ireland the position is somewhat different, and we are often aware of the differences between political organisations—they can be the most extreme differences imaginable—but sometimes it is instructive to consider the similarities between diverse political parties within Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) talked about a trench and showed us a picture of it. It is interesting to note that all the differing parties in the council concerned were united on the issue. As a new Member in the House, I learned a lesson when a deputation arrived from Strabane to try to persuade the Government to provide money—as is done under the Bellwin scheme—to deal with flooding, because the deputation included people with the widest possible range of political views.
I have been impressed by the extent to which agreement on social and economic questions has been reached. Reference has been made in the debate to pensioners' rights and social welfare provision and to the fact that the Government are not doing what is right for Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland appropriations provide us with an opportunity to discuss the nearest thing that we have to a Northern Ireland Budget. They are the stuff of politics. You ruled, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the police and security cannot be discussed in the debate. It is right that we should hold Northern Ireland debates from which the police, security and terrorism issues are excluded.
Unfortunately, whenever Northern Ireland appropriations are discussed, most hon. Members think that it is time to go. Nearly everyone disappears. That is partly due to the fact that there will be no Division and that no amendments can be made. I wish that those hon. Members who are interested in security questions and who receive a great deal of press coverage came to these debates to deal with the stuff of Northern Ireland politics.
I refer in particular to Opposition Members. We claim to be democratic Socialists and to be concerned about people's welfare. That is exactly what the Northern Ireland appropriations deal with. They allow hon. Members to discuss economic policies and the budgetary provisions for Northern Ireland. There is sometimes a tendency to get bogged down in the details, partly because there is no other means by which to deal with such issues. A devolved form of government for Northern Ireland would solve that problem. Northern Ireland Members of Parliament want to highlight the many constituency problems that they have to face.
The whole of the island of Ireland increasingly has to involve itself in international economic issues. The solution to Northern Ireland's serious economic problems will be part of a much broader pattern of economic development. It can be likened to the need for all countries to take action to solve the problem of global warming. One nation can do its bit by taking action to counter the greenhouse effect, but correct solutions will not be found unless there is international co-operation. That applies just

as much to economic problems as to pollution of the environment. Nevertheless, something could be done and some steps could be taken that the Government have not contemplated. Northern Ireland has its own special problems in addition to having our problems multiplied to the nth degree.
It is interesting to consider the Department of Employment's figures on unemployment in connection with tonight's debate. When the debate finishes at 11.30 pm, we shall have heard three speeches from Conservative Members. According to the Government's unemployment figures, the constituencies that they represent have fewer than 2,000 people unemployed. The constituencies represented by my hon. Friends and I have unemployment figures of between 2,500 and 5,000—unemployment in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is 5,000 and the figure for my constituency is just over 2,500. My constituency is marginal—half is Conservative territory and the other half is Labour territory, with unemployment concentrated in Labour areas. The problems of homelessness and indebtedness in my constituency are universal in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North.
According to the Government's figures, unemployment in the constituencies of hon. Members representing Northern Ireland is above 4,000 and sometimes considerably more. The highest unemployment figure for a constituency in Northern Ireland is 9,624. We must remember how often the Government adjust the unemployment figures. Those adjustments reduce the unemployment figures for the constituencies of hon. Gentlemen who have spoken tonight, except those of Conservative Members. Seven of the nine constituencies with the highest unemployment figures are in Northern Ireland, where such problems cut across the political divide.
The two constituencies with the highest unemployment figures are Belfast, West, which is represented by Sinn Fein, and Foyle, which is represented by the SDLP. The constituency of Mid-Ulster is next and there is high unemployment in constituencies represented by Ulster Unionist Members. Although we have tried to tackle many of the problems in Northern Ireland with fair employment provisions, those measures cannot work properly without some strategy for tackling unemployment in the Province.
If time permitted, I could say much more about the problems and difficulties in Northern Ireland that represent an extension of many of those that exist in our own constituencies. There are problems of indebtedness: figures published by the Housing Executive show the number of families who have had their electricity cut off. That occurs much more in Northern Ireland than anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
There is widespread homelessness, despite the work of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. Many houses in Northern Ireland are old, and, according to a survey produced by the Housing Executive, 60 per cent. of dwellings were built before 1919. There is much overcrowding, inadequate food storage facilities and lack of proper facilities generally.
To tackle those problems, we need collective, co-ordinated and planned action. I attend these debates regularly, at which my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) suggests such action. He said that there should be more social welfare provision and


economic development. The market philosophy and the principles of free enterprise and entrepreneurship, as propounded by the Government, are most damaging to Northern Ireland.
There are problems with collective, co-ordinated and planned action, but they can be solved by instigating democratic practices. No democracy can operate without vast bureaucracies but by extending democracy bureaucracies can be made to work better. Devolved government for Northern Ireland seems essential.
That is not to deny the difficulties of the political divisions and the deeper divisions in Northern Ireland. A Bill of Rights is particularly appropriate to Northern Ireland's problems, because it would prevent bias against the communities, thereby making them feel more protected and assured. The Secretary of State's responses show that he is not entirely opposed to that development.

Mr. Beggs: I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman about the Bill of Rights, but does he agree that, in order to protect minorities, it should apply to every citizen of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Barnes: A case can be made for a Bill of Rights, but it is argued that, because of the civil liberties problems and divisions between both communities, before a Bill of Rights can apply to Northern Ireland it must be worked out for the United Kingdom, but that argument does not hold. A Bill of Rights is appropriate to tackle special problems, so it might be useful to instigate it initially in Northern Ireland. We might benefit and learn from that and be able to develop it more generally. The Government thought that it would be advantageous to introduce the poll tax first in Scotland. Luckily, they have not introduced it in Northern Ireland. They could take progressive action by introducing a Bill of Rights initially in Northern Ireland, from which we could benefit later.
The one democratic advantage of Northern Ireland is that it does not have the poll tax. Its franchise is therefore healthier than the rest of the United Kingdom, where 600,000 people have disappeared from the electoral register. It has the right franchise, but it cannot use it properly because the framework in which to operate it is wrong. If we want the young people of Northern Ireland to respect each other, to develop a social conscience and to be involved in the democratic process, we cannot continue to preach greed, ruthlessness and competition between people. The opposite qualities are exactly those which are required for Northern Ireland. They are the qualities of democratic socialism, which are required for the rest of the United Kingdom. Let us start doing something in that direction, because there is a crying need for social and economic provisions.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I thank all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate for the constructive way in which they have approached the problems of Northern Ireland addressed by the spending in the order.
In particular, on my behalf and that of the those who either heard the speech of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) or heard reports of it, I say that his speech will be remembered as one of the best maiden speeches that has been made in this Parliament. I speak as

someone who was elected at a by-election. An hon. Member from the other side said how much he appreciated my speech and how much better it was than that of my party leader. I shall not be as damaging as that because the hon. Gentleman's party leader has not spoken in the debate tonight.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann spoke in a way that showed no sign of nerves. His precise delivery may have betrayed the fact that he made a full-time living as a lecturer and could have continued to do so. But that is not the way the result turned out. We look forward to hearing from him more often. The hon. Gentleman shares with the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) a gift of understatement which is not always characteristic of Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland. He also speaks rather than proclaims, which again is welcome.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) referred to meat. I have tried to avoid putting meat into the headlines. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland did well at Balmoral yesterday in answering open questions in an open way.
Without in any sense seeking to be secret or private, I believe that we are coming to a time when the level of publicity given to BSE should fall. I predict that during the next 12 months no one in the whole of the European Community will die of BSE. Some 55,000 people will die on the roads. How much more useful it would have been if half the publicity about BSE and meat had been diverted to areas in which we can save lives over and over again.

Mr. Jim Marshall: The comparison is nonsense.

Mr. Bottomley: I am not sure what point the hon. Gentleman seeks to make.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) must speak on the record.

Mr. Bottomley: My point is that the most important industry in Northern Ireland is agriculture and a most important part of that is beef.
I do not intend to answer all the points made about arable agriculture and set-aside. Few people in arable farming want to go into set-aside. Set-aside does not apply to most arable farmers, unless they are in environmentally sensitive areas, where different considerations apply.
My prime job is to work with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Minister for Agriculture and Food from the south—I pay tribute to Michael O'Kennedy—with whom I was at Balmoral today. We spoke openly together about some of the agriculture matters that we have in common. We also work closely with the European Commission. Although it is not always shown in the appropriation orders, the outcome of discussions among the Twelve has been better for Northern Ireland than people predicted. I am told that sometimes it is like trying to line up 12 strawberries in a row on a fruit machine, although I would not want to confess to gambling while I am serving at the Northern Ireland Office. There is a partnership between Members of the European Parliament for Northern Ireland, the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ieland—officials as well as Ministers—and our colleagues in London and Brussels. There are further improvements to come, but agriculture remains the most important industry to be protected and on which to build.

Rev. William McCrea: Can the Minister explain why in the south of Ireland "BSE-free meat" is stamped on meat but in Northern Ireland we cannot have the same?

Mr. Bottomley: In terms of what I would call the "health contour", Northern Ireland stands between the south and the rest of the United Kingdom. Great Britain has a higher incidence of BSE——

Rev. William McCrea: What about Northern Ireland?

Mr. Bottomley: That is why I used the expression "Great Britain". Even so, eating meat in Great Britain is safe. Whether the beef comes from Great Britain, Northern Ireland or the south, it is safe to eat. The incidence of BSE is obviously much lower in Northern Ireland than in the rest of Great Britain, but we cannot declare ourselves to be BSE-free. It is vital that we have the same procedures as Great Britain for disposing of offals and any potentially dangerous bits. The south has a lower incidence. The figures are well known and I shall not use up my time by repeating them.
It is fair that we should try to enjoy the benefits of our position without declaring that we are not part of the United Kingdom. I would advance from that point and say that I want to continue disposing of the potentially dangerous offals and have it accepted that the beef anywhere in these islands—Great Britain, Northern Ireland or the south—is safe to eat.
The problem is the reaction of some people, such as education authorities and others in Great Britain, and potential foreign customers, who have begun to believe some of the media comments. I am not being party political because I do not think that the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who speaks on agriculture for the Labour party, intended the media to carry his remarks as they did. But as the debate on Monday showed, whenever such issues arise, we get more and more appointed, and some self-appointed, experts who make declarations that are not necessarily right. I argue that it is not right to raise scares about beef.
I have never hidden the fact that I am a partial vegetarian. I have reached an agreement with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that if I occasionally eat meat, he will occasionally eat vegetables. I am trying to ensure that I do what the chief medical officer for Northern Ireland did yesterday, which is to eat beef. I am not making a song and dance about doing it, or about doing it in front of the television cameras. I simply mean that we should eat beef to illustrate that it is safe. I do not want to use the rest of the time allowed for this debate talking about this issue because the more one repeats such things, the more one raises the problem.
The assurances were understood at Balmoral where very few people were asking questions about this. They understood the issues. The chief medical officer understands them, as do the veterinary officers. I hope that the customers will understand them, too.
In general, Northern Ireland food is, if I can use the expression, green, clean and healthy. We in Northern Ireland produce more natural food. We do not go in for the intensive use of either pesticides or concentrates, which is one reason why we have achieved recognition for doing far better than Great Britain for lamb, poultry, beef and virtually everything. In one area relating to pigs we are not

doing quite as well as Great Britain, but we will solve that problem. Other than that, we can buy our food with confidence.
I hope that those who buy food from continental Europe will recognise that they should be coming to Ireland instead—to all of Ireland, north and south, where we shall be doing what we can to keep the "contour of health" at the highest possible level and to bring others up to our level. If it is not damaging for me to agree with Michael O'Kennedy, I stress that some of the approaches adopted on mainland Europe will have to rise to our levels. We shall not come down to some of their practices. It will sometimes be difficult for other countries to face that. It is right that we should work both with MAFF and with Dublin. There are no real boundaries for food production in Ireland as a whole.
Many important points have been made in this debate. I shall concentrate first on the speech of the hon. Member for Upper Bann. I shall then refer to those hon. Members who spoke last, before working back to those who spoke first. This seems appropriate given the Northern Ireland approach to politics and religion.
The Craigavon issue is important. Craigavon has not gone as well as it should. Discussions taking place between the planning service, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Economic Development should lead to a better future for Craigavon, which at the moment is in the balance. We need to find ways of using the talents of its people and of recreating its development so that it can become what it was intended to be—a thriving part of Northern Ireland. One advantage of the Upper Bann by-election—whose greatest disadvantage was the untimely death of Harold McCusker—is the focus on the area that has allowed many of us to know more about it than we might otherwise have done.
I must say how pleased I was to note that, every time I saw the hon. Gentleman driving past, he seemed to be sticking to the highway code.
I was grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support for the cultural traditions programme. I believe that it will help to bring people in Northern Ireland together and enable them to recognise that one cultural tradition need not triumph over another. As has been pointed out this evening, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pays as much attention to the rights of majorities as to those of minorities—but I do not wish to become involved in politics; that, I feel, would be entirely wrong on the Floor of the House of Commons.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the cadre of officials for the Northern Ireland Assembly. That would best be dealt with through correspondence. Several issues that have been raised this evening need more discussion, if that is possible, or a more detailed response.
I hope that I shall not be accused of favouritism if I return to the remarks of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster. I was not trying to score a party political point earlier, and I am sorry that he thought I was. Clearly we need to get to know one another better. I meant only that, if the natural reaction of overseas industrialists is to consider investing in places of which they have heard, or places where their colleagues have made investments—and we welcome the increasing involvement of the Japanese, for instance—they are more likely to choose areas such as Carrickfergus rather than South Down or Mid-Ulster. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) made the same point: how can the Industrial Development Board persuade more


people to come to those areas? I meant to make the point in the gentlest possible way, but I was obviously too heavy-handed for the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster.

Mr. McGrady: Can the Minister explain a paradox? Why does a voluntary society such as the one in charge of the reconstruction of the Down museum railway attract Japanese visitors to invest in its little project, while all the weight, bite and strength of the IDB cannot persuade them to visit the same area?

Mr. Bottomley: Perhaps I should ask the IDB to engage in consultation directly with the hon. Gentleman—and with every hon. Member who is interested in such matters—to establish what can be done to make their areas more attractive to potential visitors. There is no point in arguing so much between ourselves that the investment goes elsewhere—to the Netherlands, for instance. That is what happened when the third London airport was being discussed—or was it the fourth?
We must try to work in the interests of Northern Ireland, and overcome some of the hiccups relating to inward investment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will explain that to some of his contacts, as I feel that I may be doing more harm than good whenever I say it in public.
I may not support the views of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) on the poll tax, but I pay tribute to his serious interest in Northern Ireland. Those who wax eloquent when some security-related issues are raised could gain some advantage from listening to his speeches about the Northern Ireland economy. It may not be easy for him to hold views on Northern Ireland that are unfashionable within his party, but he is always well worth hearing.
Admittedly, when the hon. Gentleman starts talking about collective co-ordinated planning, it sounds rather like what I used to hear when I was elected in 1975. We were always being told about matters such as industrial strategy agreements, which could not even be arranged with nationalised industries. There is much to be said for

the Northern Ireland approach, which is to try to find the enterprise and work with it, whether it is generated internally or externally.
Let us consider food, which is the other side of agriculture. It is worth recognising that the largest food business in Northern Ireland is still only about a third of the size of several in the south. Although we do not want a monopoly in any industry, we should work together if we are to succeed on a European scale.
The provision of viable education is important and that requires the provision of viable schools.
The arguments about the rural communities were well made. In my joint role as full-time Minister responsible for agriculture and part-time Minister responsible for the environment, I intend to do everything I can on the rural improvement programmes so that agriculture can make its full contribution and Government resources can be co-ordinated through the Hodges committee. So, even without adding much to the resources, we can use them more effectively so that the well-being of people throughout Northern Ireland is improved. That is what brings us together in Parliament and what lies behind people's political approaches. That aim also lies behind many of the improvements in the economy of Northern Ireland in the past few years.
It is for Ministers not to take the credit when things go well, but to ensure that more things do go well. Our responsibility is to make possible the things that are right—jobs and justice lie at the basis of that.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1990 which was laid before this House on 16th May, be approved.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.), the Criminal Damage (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 (Amendment) Order 1990 (S.R.(N.I.), 1990, No. 25) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Lead in Water (Scotland)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Mr. Andrew Welsh: The lead level in Scottish water supplies is not a new problem. I remember debating the need for action on it when I was a student at the university of Glasgow.
One remarkable aspect about the problem is that, despite the improvements made, the numbers of Scottish people affected by drinking water containing lead has not changed in the past 20 years. The reasons for that are straightforward. While some remedial efforts have been made, standards regarding the acceptable level of lead in water have risen. Therefore, the number of people affected by water with above the tolerable standard has remained stubbornly high.
My purpose tonight is to point out that remedial efforts are no longer enough and that only eradication of the problem will suffice. That must be done through a properly financed and organised lead pipe and tank replacement scheme together with the Government's implementation of the European Community standards for lead levels in drinking water. The people have a right to expect that Governments will supply wholesome and healthy water for everyday drinking.
In the past decade, the public have been exposed to intolerably high levels of lead in drinking water. In that time, the Government have done everything possible to avoid bringing water standards into line with the European water directive. I intend to expose the Government's shameful record on this and to seek to persuade the Government to reverse their previous policy of inaction and comply with the European directive in the shortest possible time by means of a programme of lead pipe replacement.
It is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that resources are available to local authorities to ensure that all lead plumbing is identified in public and private housing. Evidence that lead, even in low quantities, is damaging to health has been mounting since the early 1970s. Scientists in Europe and in the United States have produced study after study to show that the only safe level of lead in water is zero. Even at low levels, lead is a poison which has demonstrable effects on children's health.
More than 8 million households have lead in their plumbing systems—about 45 per cent. of British households. Those households are at risk only if they are in areas which suffer from the water characteristic known as plumbo-solvency, which refers to the ability of soft and acidic water to dissolve lead. About 2·5 million such households are located in plumbo-solvent areas. The combination of lead-solvent water and lead plumbing produces the unfortunate consequences of tap water with a high lead content.
For those with a historical frame of mind, there is an interesting parallel. I am told that the combination of soft water and lead is exactly similar in action to the wine and pewter combination which poisoned the Roman aristocracy and led to the fall of the Roman empire. While the people of Edinburgh are happy to share architectural style with the ancient Romans, there would be massive opposition to sharing their lead poisoning. Indeed, in a constituency next to that of the Minister, the results of a

survey carried out this week show that people are drinking water with five times the European limit of lead while others produced levels of twice and three times the limit. One Leith tenement had 22 times the permissible limit under EEC regulations. Such water is being drunk daily by Edinburgh families. That is the problem.
Within the United Kingdom, Scotland has by far the largest population living in old, unmodernised houses in soft water areas, and therefore the largest population at risk from lead contaminated drinking water. Within Scotland, Glasgow, Edinburgh and the populous central belt are most at risk. Limited funds have meant that all renovation work, including pipe replacement, has been slow and piecemeal.
One company which specialises in lead pipe replacement work states that it has been
in touch with Glasgow district council grants department over the past few months. The situation at present is that they are not processing any new applications and have not been since mid December 1989. They cannot give any idea in the near future when anything will be processed. West Lothian district is in a similar situation with no funds having been available since January 1990. No date in the foreseeable future is expected from West Lothian district council for grants to be processed. Other areas in which we do work are now saying that due to demand, the allocation this year will not be sufficient, and they are not hopeful of getting further funding.
Work in the areas most at risk is coming to a grinding halt. I put the blame firmly on central Government who alone have the resources and the ability to fund and to run a proper lead pipe replacement campaign. The current grant system does not encourage builders or house owners to replace lead pipes. Indeed, public housing has suffered from a long period of spending restrictions imposed on local authorities by the Government. That has obviously meant that lead pipe replacement has been reduced to a snail's pace or has ceased.
Housing departments are often in the unfortunate position of having to choose between initiating programmes to eradicate dampness or to replace lead pipes, even though each poses a significant public health risk. In Glasgow 80,000 public sector houses and 81,000 privately owned homes still contain lead plumbing. In Edinburgh the respective figures are 20,000 and 45,000. The rate of local authority grants to private home owners has been small compared with the size of the task. Only 58,000 grants were made throughout Scotland over the six-year period between 1982 and 1988. At that rate of grant allocation, it will be well into the next century before Scotland's private houses are completely rid of lead plumbing.
In the early part of the decade, lead contaminated the tap water of about 35 per cent. of households throughout Scotland, yet there has been no co-ordinated, properly funded programme of remedial action to rid Scotland of lead plumbing. It is typical of the Government to prefer making economic savings rather than paying for a once-for-all solution. Water treatment can provide relief from the higher range of lead levels, but now that higher quality water standards are required to safeguard public health, water treatment no longer provides an attractive, cheaper option.
Additional reductions in lead cannot be achieved through treatment processes. Therefore, to improve the quality of drinking water to a level considered safe, all remedial action programmes must switch to lead pipe replacement.
By thinking that they can save money by choosing water treatment instead of lead pipe replacement, the Government are inflicting a double injustice on the public. First, they will have to pay for lead pipe replacement in addition to the money spent on the now redundant treatment facilities. Secondly, the public have been unnecessarily exposed to lead during the time it has taken the Government to be bullied into such effective action.
As the costs involved in partial, as opposed to complete, lead pipe replacement are relatively small, the correct option has to be the final and complete eradication of such lead piping. Instead of action to protect Scotland's public health and produce wholesome, lead-free drinking water, the Government have dragged their feet over implementing the 1980 European water directive, which resulted in Scotland's drinking water failing to achieve a standard of quality by the stipulated deadline of July 1985.
A year later, Friends of the Earth in Scotland sent a letter of complaint to the European Commission, drawing to its attention the long list of actions and standards that the Scottish Office had failed to achieve over the six years since the United Kingdom signed the directive. The Commission has now brought a prosecution against the United Kingdom Government. I compliment the Friends of the Earth in Scotland on authorising a survey that showed a shocking level of lead-polluted water in Scotland and on its initiative in running a pure water campaign for Scotland.
The Friends of the Earth survey does not attempt to provide the detailed analysis for which official agencies and authorities are responsible and which they should be producing. However, in the absence of any other relevant data, the survey provides an estimate of the numbers of people affected by different levels of lead. The Minister, when he replies, will no doubt seek to play down the survey's significance by claiming that the size of the sample is too small and that it is not statistically valid across the whole population. If that is the case, let the Government compare like with like and produce the true figures.
The Government's response to environmental pollution has been piecemeal and confused. They have largely ignored the recommendations of the 1983 Royal Commission on environmental pollution that deals with home improvements and repair grants, as well as publicity. Lead in petrol is a much more controversial debate, yet the Government have acted on petrol but not on the scientifically more proven water problem. Different Government Departments have adopted different recommended standards. While the Minister gallops at a snail's pace towards the 50 micrograms per litre standard, his colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food recommend a lower safety level of only 30 micrograms per litre. Which is right? I would claim that both standards are inadequate compared with the United States' Environmental Protection Agency's final target of zero lead and its current working target of 10 micrograms per litre.
The Government claim that they are environmentally conscious and Ministers regularly declare, "How green is my policy." Yet here before them is the lead standard test. Will this be another case of mere Government greenwash or will they take real action? The Government have dragged their heels for 10 years over the implementation of current European lead levels, which are now being superseded. The only safe level of lead in water is no lead. Greenwash or action—which is it to be?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) on securing an opportunity to debate the extremely important subject of lead in drinking water in Scotland. As I shall demonstrate, it is an issue that the Scottish Office has tackled effectively, and it will continue to do so. That applies not only to lead in water but to the quality of water supplies generally. We set great store by the quality of Scottish drinking water, and considerable progress has been made over the past decade in improving it where necessary. Further improvement works are necessary to achieve the strict quality standards in the new water quality regulations that we brought into force on 1 May.
It may be helpful it I describe the nature of the problem of lead in water and the particular difficulties that we have to overcome in Scotland. Lead was widely used for water pipes and cisterns in domestic dwellings up to the early 1960s. It is seldom naturally present in water supply sources, and the water put into supply by Scottish water authorities, regional and islands councils contains little lead, if any at all.
As the hon. Member for Angus, East pointed out, some waters—particularly soft, acidic waters—are plumbosolvent: that is to say, they dissolve lead through contact with lead pipes and plumbing systems. There can also be a short-term problem with the lead-based solder used in jointing copper plumbing systems. Plumbo-solvency is a problem in many parts of the United Kingdom, but it has been particularly marked in Scotland because of the nature of our water supply sources.
A second factor is the traditional pattern of housing in Scotland, which is something on which the hon. Gentleman also touched. It is a pattern of high-density, tenement property with a heritage of lead plumbing, particularly in urban areas. Later, I shall describe how that problem has been tackled.
Particular concern about the health implications of lead in drinking water began to develop in the 1970s. At that time, it was considered that a lead level of up to 300 microgrammes per litre was acceptable. As a result of growing concern, a nationwide survey of lead levels in drinking water supplies was undertaken in 1975–76, and the results were published in 1977 as "Pollution Paper No. 12".
In 1978, the use of lead for new pipes was prohibited by byelaws, but its use in that way had already generally ceased many years earlier. In the same year, a number of expert advisory groups were established to examine various aspects of lead in water, including the identification of plumbo-solvent supplies, monitoring procedures, and water treatment processes. Those groups produced four reports on lead in water in 1980–81, and another in 1984.
Additionally, the 1975–76 national survey led to a number of medical studies throughout the United Kingdom in the years that followed. In Scotland, the most significant were undertaken using population groups in Glasgow, Ayr, Dundee and Edinburgh. I will not describe or discuss the details of those studies but I shall highlight some important points.
The Glasgow and Ayr studies confirmed the significant contribution that lead levels in water made to blood lead levels. They also clearly demonstrated that the treatment


of water by pH adjustment significantly reduced the lead levels both in drinking water and the blood of the study subjects. The Edinburgh studies undertaken over the past six to seven years have contributed greatly to our knowledge of the health implications of lead, particularly for children.
I emphasise that the Scottish Office has always taken full account of the medical evidence as it has developed over the past 10 years or so, and the medical advice based on that evidence is reflected in the increasingly stringent measures that have been taken to tackle lead in water.

Mr. Welsh: Does not the Minister accept that remedial action will not solve the problem, but only the complete removal and replacement of lead pipes and tanks? It has taken the United Kingdom 10 years to catch up with European standards, which themselves will be made stricter still over the next few years. When will the Minister take action?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the complete removal eventually of lead piping is highly desirable.
It has often been claimed, and as the hon. Gentleman suggests, that little was done to tackle the problem in Scotland before the European Community's drinking water directive came into force in 1985. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have already mentioned the range of medical and other studies that started in the late 1970s, but practical measures were also under way by that time.
The first priority was to reduce quickly and effectively overall exposure to lead in the population. The treatment of water supplies to tackle plumbo-solvency by pH adjustment—and subsequently by orthophosphate dosing if necessary—was clearly the most suitable proven method of reducing lead levels to the benefit of the maximum number of people.Throughput the period up to 1985 the water authorities, encouraged by the Scottish Office, took effective action to improve their supplies by water treatment, particularly those serving major population groups.
For example, Strathclyde region installed lime dosing for the city of Glasgow before 1980—including the Loch Katrine scheme, which alone serves more than 730,000 people. All the major supplies in the region had pH control installed before 1985, by which time more than 70 per cent. by volume of the water supply in the region had such treatment in place. Similarly, all the main works in Lothian had lime dosing installed before 1985 and the main supply to Aberdeen was treated from 1978. The supplies to Dundee and most other areas of Tayside region had pH control before 1982.
It is clear that the problem was recognised and effective action undertaken in the main population areas in Scotland in the late 1970s and early 1980s. However, in 1983 the Government initiated surveys in all the water authority areas to identify all supplies at which remedial works were necessary. The survey results showed that, in 1985, 103 supply areas—many of them small and rural—should be treated. I should emphasise that, even within these areas, only a fairly small proportion of the population might have tap water with a lead content above the prescribed level. Of these 103 supplies, 86 were scheduled for completion by the target date of the end of

1989. Of the other 17, representing about 16 per cent. of the 103 supplies that needed treatment, 16 are in Strathclyde and one serves part of Edinburgh. Twelve schemes, including that in Edinburgh, are due to be completed this year, four are due for completion next year and the last, which is a major scheme involving work other than lead, is due for completion in 1992.
As the hon. Gentleman may know, it is these 17 supplies which form the basis of the application to the European Court of Justice alleging non-compliance with the lead standard in the drinking water directive. Perhaps I should say something about the case which the European Commission has raised in the court, alleging non-compliance by the United Kingdom on a number of counts related to the drinking water directive, including lead in water in Scotland. It is our strong view that the Commission's application is misconceived. It certainly does nothing to reduce the amount of lead in drinking water. Considerable progress has been made in tackling the problem, and we have made strenuous efforts over the years both to satisfy the Commission's information requirements and to reach agreement on the timetables for improvement works. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the United Kingdom will be mounting a robust defence to the Commission's allegations on lead and, indeed, on the other issues before the court.
The work undertaken by the water authorities to improve their supplies by treatment over the past 10 years or more represents major progress in reducing levels of lead in drinking water, but that is not all that has been done. The Scottish Office recognised that the long-term solution to the problem of lead in water was the removal of lead piping, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested. The water authorities have for many years been replacing their lead communication pipes between the mains and individual properties when it is possible to do so in the course of other works and when house owners are replacing their own lead pipes. The authorities are now obliged by statute to replace their pipes at the request of a consumer who is replacing his lead pipe when there is a risk of the lead standard being breached at the consumer's tap. In 1982 the Government also extended the housing repairs grant scheme to include grant assistance specifically aimed at tackling lead in water.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the Minister give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No. I propose to answer the point clearly made by the hon. Gentleman.
Grants became available for the replacement of domestic lead plumbing under more favourable conditions compared with other repair grants. At the outset, the rate of grant was pitched at 90 per cent. for a temporary period in common with the other categories of repair grant, but when the general rate reverted to 50 per cent. in 1984 the Government held the rate for lead pipe replacement at 75 per cent. in recognition of this particular problem. Between 1982 and 1989, nearly 67,000 such grants were made to owners in the private housing sector in Scotland. In the same period, some 475,000 dwellings were improved by public sector agencies, such as local authorities, Scottish Homes, the Scottish Special Housing Association and New Towns, and by housing associations, and many of these dwellings will have had lead plumbing replaced as part of the overall improvement works.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should like to develop what I am saying, as I have a lot to say. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be able to speak later when I have got through my key points.
The steps taken by the water and housing authorities are sound, positive measures to tackle the lead in water problem, but we are not content to leave it at that. The new water quality regulations which came into force on 1 May introduce a tighter quality standard on lead than is required by the EC drinking water directive. The water authorities will have to reassess their water supplies in the light of the new standard by the end of 1991 and, where necessary, improve their treatment works to meet that standard by 1995.
The new regulations also implement the Government's long standing policy of reducing exposure to lead in the environment and the recent medical advice that it is prudent to continue to reduce such exposure. Regulation 24 places a new requirement on water authorities, whenever there is a risk that the lead standard may be exceeded because of lead dissolved from consumers' pipes, to treat the water in most circumstances in order to eliminate the risk or reduce it to a minimum. This provision is expected to bring about treatment of water to reduce plumbo-solvency in many areas which are not covered by improvement programmes designed to meet the less rigorous standard set in the EC directive.
The Scottish Office has played its part in this, and has demonstrated its commitment to improving the water environment generally, by increasing capital expenditure for water and sewerage programmes by 50 per cent. in recent years, from £95 million in 1985–86 to £142 million in this financial year. Expenditure is set to rise even further to £170 million next year and to £190 million in 1992–93. In setting these substantial increases, we took into account the possibility that the water authorities would need to carry out further treatment to reduce plumbo-solvency to meet the new lead standard.
I was interested to read in The Scotsman of 21 April a report which quoted Mr. Roger Mullin, the SNP's environment spokesman, as saying that, according to local authority estimates, £800 million was needed to improve water and sewerage over the next five years. This was claimed to be £300 million more than the Government were prepared to spend. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are allocating more than £500 million over only three years and are therefore well on the way to exceeding the figure quoted by the SNP. If that rate of £500 million over three years was carried forward, it would be over £800 million, but we plan for only three years at a time.
The hon. Gentleman may also be interested to know that I met representatives of COSLA's water committee

last Friday to discuss expenditure on water and sewerage. I listened very carefully to what they had to say, and assured them that their views will be fully taken into account when we set capital allocations for future years.
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we have also asked the local authorities, Scottish Homes and the new town development corporations to estimate the number of public and private sector houses which contain lead plumbing, and the cost of replacing it. This information should provide a more accurate assessment of the scale of the problem and inform our consideration of what further steps might be taken to reduce exposure to lead in water. When all the returns are received, we will be collating arid publishing the results.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: When?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We shall get on with this as soon as possible, because it is extremely important.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the survey and report on lead in water by Friends of the Earth (Scotland). A copy of the report was sent to me, and I have today sent a full reply to the Friends. I should be happy to provide a copy to the hon. Member. However, the report reveals considerable ignorance and misunderstanding of the issues involved. In addition, the Friends' survey is so seriously flawed that no reliable conclusions can be drawn from it.
I am pleased to say, however—this is to its credit—that there is much about which we can agree in the Friends' 10-point programme for action. Indeed, the Government have implemented seven of the action points, and the other three were already under active consideration.

Mr. Welsh: Instead of attacking the Friends of the Earth, will not the Minister accept that the authorities were involved? At least the Friends of the Earth produced figures. In 10 years, the Government did not get round to producing the figures on which positive decisions could be taken. Five years have passed since the European deadline was reached, and only now are the Government producing the figures. They should have done so long ago.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have made it clear that we are implementing seven of the action points and that the other three are under active consideration. I can respond at length on the figures.
To sum up, the Scottish Office has always recognised the health implication of lead in water. We have taken practical and positive steps to tackle the problem in the light of the developing medical evidence and advice. We are certainly not complacent in any way. We are actively considering what further measures we might take. We shall certainly go ahead as quickly as possible. I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for initiating the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at 12 o'clock midnight.